[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


               COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 
                AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                   ___________________________________

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
                          AND RELATED AGENCIES

                 MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania, Chairman

  GRACE MENG, New York			ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida		STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  ED CASE, Hawaii			BEN CLINE, Virginia
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland	MIKE GARCIA, California
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland


  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full 
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

           Bob Bonner, Jeff Ashford, Faye Cobb, TJ Lowdermilk,
                Shannon McCully, James Wise, and Nora Faye
                            Subcommittee Staff

                   ___________________________________

                                  PART 5

                                                                   Page
  Covid Outbreaks and Management 
Challenges: Evaluating the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons Pandemic Response and 
the Way Forward.........................                                                       
                                                                      1
                                        
  Management, Performance Challenges, 
and Covid Response at the Department of 
Justice.................................                                                                
                                                                     45
                                        
  The National Science Foundation's 
Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request.........                                                                
                                                                    107
                                        
  Increasing Risks of Climate Change and 
NOAA's Role in Providing Climate 
Services................................                                                                 
                                                                    181
                                        
  Oversight of the Economic Development 
Administration's Role in Pandemic 
Response................................                                                                 
                                                                    253
                                        

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      ___________________________________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
          
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-187                       WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          

                     ___________________________________


                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair


  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
  BARBARA LEE, California
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
  TIM RYAN, Ohio
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  DEREK KILMER, Washington
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
  GRACE MENG, New York
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
  PETE AGUILAR, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
  NORMA J. TORRES, California
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
  ED CASE, Hawaii
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada

  KAY GRANGER, Texas
  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  KEN CALVERT, California
  TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
  CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BEN CLINE, Virginia
  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  MIKE GARCIA, California
  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  TONY GONZALES, Texas

                 Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)

 
  COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                                  2022

                              ----------                              

                                          Thursday, March 18, 2021.

   COVID OUTBREAKS AND MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES: EVALUATING THE FEDERAL 
        BUREAU OF PRISONS PANDEMIC RESPONSE AND THE WAY FORWARD

                                WITNESS

MICHAEL CARVAJAL, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
    Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin. As this hearing 
is fully virtual, we have to address a few housekeeping 
matters. For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by 
the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted 
yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to unmute 
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will go ahead 
and unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on 
your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At the 1 
minute remaining, the clock will turn yellow. At 30 seconds 
remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind members that 
their time has almost expired. When your time has expired, the 
clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next 
member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the 
chair and ranking member. Then, members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority. And, finally, members not present at the time the 
hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules do remind me to say to you that we 
have set up an email address to which members can send anything 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or 
markups. That email address has been provided in an advanced to 
your staff.
    The subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon. This 
is the subcommittee's first hearing in the 117th Congress, and 
I am humbled to be taking over the gavel from our great Jose 
Serrano, the CJS chair in the last Congress. CJS had become 
synonymous with the name, Chair Jose Serrano, and I know that 
those are big shoes to fill. We miss him terribly.
    I do look forward to working together, virtually, and I 
hope soon in person, with my terrific colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle of this subcommittee. I have a great partner in 
Congressman Robert Aderholt. And I know we both want to work 
collaboratively and productively toward many common goals.
    I would also like to take a moment to welcome a few new 
members to our subcommittee, Representatives David Trone of 
Maryland, Ben Cline of Virginia, Mike Garcia of California, as 
well as one returning Member, Representative Dutch 
Ruppersberger of Maryland. I am so glad to have you all join us 
for the 117th Congress. I would also like briefly to introduce 
and welcome all members of the subcommittee whom I have not yet 
mentioned, Representative Grace Meng of New York, Charlie Crist 
of Florida, Ed Case of Hawaii, Brenda Lawrence of Michigan, and 
Steve Palazzo of Mississippi. I feel fortunate and humbled to 
have such a wonderful group of members on this subcommittee, 
and I am confident we will achieve many great things together.
    Turning to the business of the subcommittee today, we 
undertake one of our key responsibilities: oversight of the 
Federal agency operations and programs that we fund. We welcome 
today Michael Carvajal, Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons or the BOP, in his first appearance before this 
committee. Director Carvajal began his career with BOP in 1992, 
assuming increasingly responsible positions in BOP institutions 
in Texas, Kansas, and Louisiana before being appointed a 
northeast regional director in 2016 and the assistant director 
for the correctional program division in 2018. He was named 
Director of the Bureau in February of 2020.
    It is an overused expression: Timing is everything. It 
would appear that you, Director Carvajal, took on your job when 
BOP's world was about to be upended. We can debate how much 
everyone was prepared to deal with the impact of a global 
pandemic, which the World Health Organization announced on 
January 30, 2020. But, in hindsight, the 6 weeks that elapsed 
between the time, that time and the March 13, 2020, White House 
emergency declaration was a terribly precious time, and I 
believe we have to examine the opportunities to protect the 
very vulnerable population that BOP missed during this critical 
juncture.
    Director Carvajal, you inherited an agency responsible for 
the safety, security, and the welfare of over 175,000 inmates, 
147,122 facilities owned and operated by the BOP itself, and 
about 37,000 BOP officers and staff. Over the past year, you 
have seen a 13-percent reduction in the overall inmate 
population, and a 15-percent reduction in the population in BOP 
facilities, and you have 1,000 fewer officers and staff. This 
is the lowest BOP inmate population in over 20 years. These 
figures shed light on the challenging circumstances you have 
dealt with and your reaction to it. And a part of the story are 
these unfortunate numbers: 225 inmates and 4 BOP employees dead 
from COVID-19. I repeat that: 225 inmates and 4 BOP employees 
dead from COVID-19, and over 47,000 inmates and 5,000 staff 
contracting this disease and recovered.
    Now, although, BOP has grappled with massive logistics 
issues over the past year, managing a huge medical program, 
quarantine operation, and an ongoing security concern, I 
believe there are questions that need to be answered about 
whether or not BOP is meeting its safety responsibilities to 
its staff and its inmates.
    While the BOP system is vast and it sprawls across the 
country, I do believe BOP has struggled uniformly to implement 
proper safety standards and policies. I have received reports 
from correctional staff, inmates, even other correctional 
offices with BOP facilities that--congressional offices with 
BOP facilities that treatment, testing, quarantine policies and 
general safety measures over the past year are simply not up to 
par.
    To help BOP cope with the unexpected cost of the pandemic, 
Congress appropriated $400 million in two different emergency 
supplementals in fiscal years 2020 and 2021. As such, today, we 
will want answers about how BOP used and is using those funds. 
We want to make sure every possible measure is being taken and 
every dollar is being spent for the purpose of protecting those 
within the walls of the BOP facilities. Specifically, did you 
have adequate protective equipment? How did you make deployment 
decisions for that equipment? Were inmates and staff properly 
isolated and movement managed safely and promptly to reduce the 
risk of spreading disease within BOP or among the general 
public? Did BOP take full advantage of options to move inmates 
out of crowded quarters, such as through home confinement or 
compassionate release? Overall, how shall we assess BOP's 
treatment of those in its custody and the dedicated staff who 
work around the clock to carry out BOP's corrections mission?
    The examination of BOP's operation during the pandemic is 
not the only matter that deserves close examination in today's 
hearing. We would also like to hear how BOP is addressing other 
things, like reducing overcrowding and the use of staff 
augmentation, an issue I have contacted BOP about on several 
occasions in the past; grappling with the continuing threat 
from contraband, such as opioid drugs like fentanyl; and 
implementation of the First Step Act. In addition, we would 
like to hear how BOP is addressing the ongoing and urgent 
challenge of its aging facilities and infrastructure.
    So, once again, welcome, Director Carvajal, and we look 
forward to your testimony. At this time, I want to turn to my 
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for his comments.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, and I appreciate you, 
Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. And I am, like 
you say, pleased to be first here for the first official 
hearing of the fiscal year 2022 appropriations cycle.
    And even though we have talked on several occasions, I want 
to formally congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your role as 
chair and wish you well in this new role that you will be 
undertaking. I look forward to speaking with you and also to 
find ways that we can fund programs that foster American 
competitiveness, enable new discoveries in science both here, 
on this Earth, and also in space, and the capability of 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement, just to name a few 
of the diverse and vital missions that are under the purview of 
this subcommittee. I, along with my staff, stand ready to work 
alongside you and your staff to continue the spirit of the 
camaraderie that we have shared on this subcommittee and has 
been a hallmark of the subcommittee for many years.
    On that note, I appreciate you recognizing all of the 
members, the new members of the subcommittee. Of course, from 
the Republican standpoint, we have two new Republican members. 
First, we have Congressman Ben Cline. He represents the Sixth 
District of Virginia. He was a member of the Virginia House of 
Delegates. He chaired the Committee on Militia, Police, and 
Public Safety. And he is also a former member of the Judiciary 
Committee. And we look forward to him sharing his perspective 
with the subcommittee.
    Also, Congressman Mike Garcia, he represents California's 
25th District, and he is a decorated former naval officer and 
businessman.
    Congressman Garcia, thank you for your service to our 
Nation and look forward to your insight as well, particularly 
in aviation and aerospace expertise, as well as economic 
development.
    I am pleased today, at this point, to turn to the witness, 
and also, like, Mr. Chairman, as you welcomed him, I would like 
to welcome Director Carvajal as well.
    This hearing is an opportunity for us to hear about how the 
Bureau of Prisons is addressing the many challenges involved in 
preventing the spread of the coronavirus among the Bureau of 
Prisons' inmate population. Also, I think it is important for 
us to learn about how the President's executive order mandating 
the closure of all BOP contract operating institutions is 
affecting your operations, particularly with respect to its 
unusual and untimely purpose. The displacement of thousands of 
inmates while in the throes of pandemic, which has taken the 
lives of, as mentioned, over 200 of your inmates already. So, 
with that, I look forward to discussing these matters with you 
today.
    And, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. And thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
    And at this time, Director Carvajal, you are recognized for 
your opening remarks. Please try to keep your statement to 5 
minutes. And, remember, as always, your full written statement 
will be included in the record, so that enables you to keep the 
5 minutes.
    You are recognized, Director Carvajal.
    Mr. Carvajal. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman 
Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members of the 
subcommittee. It is my privilege today to speak on behalf of 
the 37,000 BOP corrections professionals who work day in and 
day out to support our critical law enforcement mission. I am 
committed to ensuring these dedicated men and women are guided 
by the values of respect, integrity, courage, and professional 
excellence. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the 
Bureau's response to the pandemic, along with our efforts to 
provide inmates with the necessary programming to return to the 
community and to their families.
    I have spent the majority of my professional life and 
career service to this agency. After serving in the United 
States Army, I joined the Bureau of Corrections Office and 
moved up through the ranks to my current position as Director. 
I care deeply about our work and the personal sacrifices that 
the Bureau's law enforcement officers make.
    The Bureau currently confines approximately 151,000 inmates 
in 122 Federal prisons nationwide, as well as 200 community-
based facilities and 10 private facilities. Almost 80 percent 
of our inmates are serving terms for drugs, weapons, or sex 
offenses with 41 percent of those being medium- to high-
security offenders.
    The pandemic has made the safe management of those 
offenders even more challenging. And, yet, we continue to 
maintain low levels of serious assaults while addressing 
reentry needs.
    However, it is with a heavy heart and despite our best 
efforts, that I must report there had been 4 deaths, 4 staff 
deaths and 225 deaths related to COVID for the inmates.
    It has been suggested that the Bureau is spreading COVID 
within our communities. Contact tracing performed often reveals 
that the virus entered our prisons from the communities. A 
review shows that our institutions generally follow the same 
spikes in recovery seen in the communities where they are 
located. Therefore, it is vital that we will work together, the 
Bureau and the public, to combat the spread.
    I thank each of you for your continued support in providing 
the resources needed to manage this pandemic. Our response has 
often been mischaracterized in public forums. This is 
unfortunate. Since, from the first days of the pandemic, we 
have worked closely with the CDC. We have developed a response 
plan that reflects the best available guidance from the 
Nation's leading experts. We continue to assess and update the 
plan by welcoming external stakeholders into our facilities for 
audits and to assure procedural compliance. These reviews, in 
addition to our own internal assessments and inspections, both 
scheduled and unannounced, are ongoing and assist us in 
developing best practices.
    Since the passage of the CARES Act through existing 
authorities, we have transferred almost 23,000 inmates to home 
confinement. We have been transparent regarding our mitigation 
plans, our operational adjustments and data, including staff 
and inmate COVID cases, testing numbers, and now, fortunately, 
vaccine administration. Our public website contains a 
comprehensive overview of our current status and is updated 
daily.
    We are thankful that the Bureau was provided the Pfizer and 
Moderna vaccines. I am proud to say that we have administered 
over 80,000 doses to staff and inmates. The Bureau was 
recognized for leading all jurisdictions and Federal entities 
in having the highest percentage of vaccines administered per 
doses allocated in the United States.
    In addition to responding to COVID-19, several of our 
facilities in Texas recently faced a severe winter weather 
event. Despite the unexpected impact on the surrounding 
infrastructure, including rolling blackouts, frozen water 
lines, and resource distribution, we were able maintain our 
operations. At the request of FEMA, we also assisted the State 
of Texas during the emergency by providing logistical support 
and supplies to several local municipalities. Our staff have 
responded to these continuous challenges with dedication and 
resilience, and I am extremely proud of their work.
    An ongoing criticism of our agency has been a lack of 
appropriate staffing and a reliance on augmentation and 
overtime. We are committed to addressing these concerns by 
increasing our staffing levels nationwide and, more 
importantly, retaining our staff. We have initiated a hiring 
campaign focused solely on external hiring to maximize our 
staffing levels. All available recruitment and retention 
incentives, marketing strategies, and social media are being 
utilized to reach potential candidates and to retain staff.
    I am honored to speak on behalf of all the Bureau's staff 
who work tirelessly to mitigate the spread of this virus. We 
are all carrying out our very important mission. This is 
challenging, but it is vital to the safety and security of the 
public, our staff, and to the inmates entrusted to our care.
    Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and other 
distinguished members of this subcommittee, this concludes my 
statement.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Director Carvajal.
    I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
    Director Carvajal, roughly, 40 percent of BOP's budget is 
for inmate care and programs, of which about $1.3 billion is 
for inmate medical care. Given this and the inherent risks 
posed by contagious disease in the close quarters of 
corrections facilities, where getting up close and personal is 
the daily life there, it seems prudent that BOP would already 
have robust plans for pandemic contingencies already in place. 
And I would imagine this would include some form of decision 
hierarchy and options for escalating responses, adapting to 
changing conditions, and knowing when to throw out the playbook 
and call in outside help and resources. While recognizing that 
few anticipated the scale of this global pandemic, in your 
view, did BOP plans in place in 2020 include sufficient plans 
for a systemwide infectious disease outbreak?
    Mr. Carvajal. Thank you, Chairman. That is certainly a 
question that should be answered. And I will tell you that the 
answer to that is, yes, we have contingency plans. I think the 
Bureau of Prisons has a well-documented positive history of 
dealing with pandemics before: influenza outbreaks, measles, 
chicken pox, Ebola, and things of that nature.
    However, as you are certainly aware, and I was actually--my 
infamous quote when I said ``I don't think anybody was ready 
for this'' shortly after I got this position, what I was 
referring to is what we have all seen in this world is that 
this COVID was--it is huge. We learned a lot of things on the 
fly. One of the big things that is different here was the 
ability to social distance and how that played a factor. 
Prisons, as you know, Chairman, are not made for social 
distancing. So that was one of the more obvious lessons we 
learned that----
    Mr. Cartwright. Let me stop you there. I only get 5 
minutes. I want to have three questions here in 5 minutes. 
Really, that to me, you said, yes, there were plans in place. 
And my question is, were such plans widely understood by BOP 
personnel, and were they adequately trained on them, including 
steps and consequences?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Chairman. As you mentioned, in late 
January, our medical director, as late as January, last week of 
January, had already implemented a task force specific to COVID 
with the medical folks and had sent out guidance. So we were 
already working on what was going to occur and distributed to 
the medical folks. Probably, in retrospect, what we could have 
done a little better was spread that out to everyone else along 
the medical folks. One of the first briefings that I received 
first as a new Director was on COVID. And I will tell you that 
it was very enlightening to see what was going on. But that is 
one of the lessons learned. But I am happy to say that we 
were--our medical people, we are already on this.
    Mr. Cartwright. That is what I am after: What are the 
lessons learned. And the question is, what forward-looking 
plans have you put in place based on the lessons learned to 
ensure you are prepared for any future disease outbreak 
situations?
    Mr. Carvajal. Chairman, we have done a lot of best 
practices lessons learned. We established COVID compliance 
review teams for just that to review facilities. We send many 
unannounced. We stocked up on PPE. One thing that I am happy to 
say is that in--traditionally, we keep a high amount of PPE. I 
tell you, I was very nervous and worried about obtaining it 
early on. As you well know, everyone was out to get it. But I 
was happy to know that we had a good stockpile already. We 
built a national logistics center, a regional logistics site, 
and we ensure that there is appropriate PPE. We at no time ran 
low on PPE, but we were concerned about appropriate usage of it 
and control of it.
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay. That leads to my next question. How 
well-resourced was BOP in its facilities, its staff, and 
logistics and supplies to deal with the pandemic?
    Mr. Carvajal. Well, Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, we 
traditionally have contingency plans for everything. So we had 
the base things in place. Where I think that, as I mentioned 
earlier, that we were prepared, was the magnitude of what the 
pandemic entailed. So we scrambled as everyone else to ensure 
that we got appropriate PPE.
    As far as our procedures, we have been in lockstep with the 
Centers for Disease Control and other organizations from day 
one. My medical director speaks to them at a minimum weekly. So 
our plans were actually used to assist and develop a 
correctional pandemic request plan. So I would say that we were 
working through that, evolving as we went.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. The last question I have it 
relates to the transfer of inmates from one place to another. 
That happens all the time in the BOP. It has always happened. 
But as I mentioned, you know, in an emergency and in a new 
situation, you have to be ready to throw out the playbook and 
adapt to new circumstances. What did BOP do to adapt to the new 
circumstances? Once it became clear--all you had to do was read 
the newspaper to realize that taking somebody's temperature 
wasn't enough to make sure that the disease wasn't being 
transmitted. What did BOP do to adapt to that knowledge?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Chairman. As I said, we have been in 
lockstep with CDC and consulting with them. Our procedures 
were--from the start, we started quarantine and isolation 
procedures, enhanced screening. I know that you mentioned the 
movement. I certainly know we were scrutinized for that. What I 
will say is that we are statutorily obligated. The courts never 
stopped. They slowed down, and I appreciate that. But we had to 
relieve all of those local and county facilities and take 
inmates that were designated to us. Essentially, sir, it is our 
mission, so I couldn't stop and not take in inmates.
    Mr. Cartwright. That is all I have for now. I am going to--
I yield to Ranking Member Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me? Am I coming 
through?
    Mr. Cartwright. Yes.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Good, well, Director Carvajal, you 
stated in your testimony that the Bureau of Prisons does not 
control who the court places in your actual system. But the 
President stated in a recent executive order, without any 
evidence that, quote: ``To decrease incarceration levels, we 
must reduce profit-based incentives to incarcerate by phasing 
out the Federal Government's reliance on privately operated 
criminal detention facilities.''
    The question that I would have for you is I would just want 
to clarify with you since you are currently the Nation's 
foremost authority on the prison system, is it judges--and it 
is not prison operators or administrators--that actually make a 
sentencing decision? Is that correct?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman, I would agree.
    Mr. Aderholt. And are you aware of any profit-based 
incentives that are influencing prison sentences by our Federal 
judges?
    Mr. Carvajal. No, Congressman, I personally am not aware of 
any.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thanks. And as I had alluded to this past 
January, the President signed an executive order that 
eliminated the use of privately operated detention facilities, 
which ends all agreements with detention contractors. What 
would happen to the people who work at these facilities--and 
literally there are thousands of people who work across the 
Nation from Big Spring, Texas, to Moshannon Valley, 
Pennsylvania, to Baldwin, Michigan, and their local economics, 
given that the President literally took away the jobs with 
signing this executive order--for example, Baldwin, Michigan, 
where North Lake Federal Correctional Institute is located, it 
has a population of roughly 1,100 people. North Lake employs 
260 people. And I realize that this is a rhetorical question, 
but what type of impact would this have, even though, like I 
said, I know you are not responsible for it, you know, just get 
your thoughts on what impact it will have overall?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. It is difficult for me to 
answer that question because I am going to say that there is an 
obvious impact. I can't sit here and tell that you human beings 
aren't going to be impacted because that is obvious if there 
aren't jobs available.
    Unfortunately, I don't have control over what the privates 
do. We have contracts. My concern--my responsibility as the 
Director is to ensure that we utilize taxpayer money 
appropriately and that I manage the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 
And in order to do that, I have to maintain and make sure that 
we are appropriately utilizing the funds, obviously, that you 
so graciously give us. And I need to make sure that there is a 
need for those beds.
    And I will say, Congressman, that back last year, late 
November, December, we were in the process--we had already 
evaluated this. And in my previous position as assistant 
director, I actually oversaw the privates. We already made the 
decision, because of bed space needs and not needing it, to 
expire some of those contracts through natural progression. So 
we didn't know anything about this executive order until it 
came out. But we had already made that decision for the 
contracts that are currently being closed. I do want to point 
out, sir, those had nothing to do with executive orders. That 
was an internal decision based on what we are supposed to be 
doing, and that is effectively using our funds.
    Mr. Cartwright. You are muted, Mr. Aderholt?
    Mr. Aderholt. How is that? Just, you know, I just want to 
point out that our loss of vital good-paying jobs is not only a 
problem with an executive order like this, but you noted that 
the Bureau of Prisons instituted a 14-day quarantine protocol 
for any necessary inmate movement. And the CDC guidelines on 
the inmates' quarantine recommends housing quarantine inmates 
are, quote, separately in a single cell with solid walls and 
solid doors fully closed, followed by separately in a single 
cell with solid walls but without solid floors. That sounds 
like solitary confinement which I know BOP tries to minimize as 
much as possible.
    My question is, is the Bureau of Prisons following those 
CDC guidelines in isolating thousands of inmates who are or 
will be transferred out of the contract operating facilities 
for our 14-day period?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, the short answer to that is yes. 
But I will note that the--I actually don't like the medical 
term ``isolation.'' For the reasons you said, we don't like to 
do that. Here is something that we learned during COVID. 
Because the CDC told us that we should be doing that and my 
medical professionals have advised me to, on the correctional 
side, I mean, I struggle with that for the reasons you said. 
But, yes, we tried to follow as much as possible the isolation 
guidelines. We are mandated to do that. We did. But what we 
have done to mitigate the other area of leaving them in 
isolation, medical isolation--there is a difference--is that we 
do enhanced screening. They are checked on twice a day, and we 
make sure that staff are engaging them and making sure that 
their needs are met. So we understand the other challenges that 
that brings, potentially, with mental health and things like 
that. But I have to listen to the experts. And I don't make 
these decisions in a vacuum. My medical director advises, and 
then we use that information to make the best decision, sir.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
    And I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. At this point, we recognize 
Representatives Charlie Crist for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Crist. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate the 
opportunity to be in this important hearing, our first. And I 
want to thank the ranking member, Aderholt, who--I went to the 
same law school. Not with, but the same law school in Alabama.
    So thank you, Director, it is wonderful to have you with us 
today. As you know, then Attorney General Barr directed the 
Bureau to prioritize the release to home confinement of 
vulnerable and qualified inmates. Presently, BOP has about 
7,500 prisoners under home confinement. And your website 
indicates the total number placed in home confinement since 
March 26 of last year is over 22,000. What have you learned 
about the use of home confinement during the pandemic, and has 
it been underutilized, and could the Bureau do more to leverage 
this opportunity?
    Mr. Carvajal. Thank you, Congressman. That is a great 
question. And I will tell you that, first of all, that we have 
utilized the authorities given to us as directed by Attorney 
General to the best we could, according to the guidance that 
was given to us. The numbers that you mentioned are there.
    What I will say that it created us a quagmire is that the 
current statute for home confinement is for a reentry for 
inmates at the end of their sentence. The statute--the CARES 
Act didn't change that. So what that did is we have been 
applying inmates for home confinement for COVID reasons under 
that statute which created some challenges. Okay.
    Mr. Crist. Sure.
    Mr. Carvajal. As you are well aware, you said we have about 
7,500--about 4,500 of those currently are CARES Act home 
confinement. So we maximized the use of our authority as bests 
as possible. The Attorney General gave us the criteria, and we 
followed that, sir.
    Mr. Crist. I have a question. So of the existing low-risk 
inmates, how many have not been put into home confinement? Do 
you know offhand?
    Mr. Carvajal. No, Congressman, I don't know the exact 
numbers.
    Mr. Crist. If you can get it for me, that would be great. I 
would appreciate it. Yes, you will do that? Yes? Please. 
Thanks.
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes.
    Mr. Crist. So I am curious, in the area of nonviolent 
marijuana convictions, do you have a breakdown of how many of 
those individuals have been given home confinement?
    Mr. Carvajal. No, Congressman, not specifically. But I will 
tell you that one of the----
    Mr. Crist. Can you get that?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, I can.
    Mr. Crist. That would be great. Thank you. I appreciate 
that very much. I think I just have one other. We all know how 
important it is to get vaccinated, especially vulnerable 
populations and our frontline workers. And I understand that 
corrections officers and the staff of the Bureau of Prisons 
facilities have been offered the vaccines. Can you speak to how 
many employees have taken you up on the offer or what 
percentage?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. Everyone in the Bureau of 
Prisons employee-wise has had the opportunity or been offered 
the vaccine. And, approximately, right at about 49 percent have 
accepted it. We certainly are continuing to encourage it and 
offer it. So, if someone changes their mind or wasn't 
available, they can tell us if they want it, and we will make 
arrangements to make sure they get it.
    Mr. Crist. How many employees do you have?
    Mr. Carvajal. We have currently a little over 37,000, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Crist. 37,000. Why do you think that less than half 
have opted to be vaccinated when it has been offered to a 
hundred percent? Does that strike your mind?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I wish I could answer that, but 
I certainly can't force it on anyone. I will tell this: I am 
vaccinated, and I encourage all of my staff to get it. That is 
the best I can do.
    Mr. Crist. I am, too. I am, too. And not to interrupt, I am 
just having a conversation. I am, too, and I am grateful for 
that. And, you know, there is about a hundred of my colleagues 
that have been offered the opportunity to be vaccinated as 
well, and I am heart-broken that they are not vaccinated, not 
only for them but for people that they may socialize with, even 
if socially distanced appropriately, that may end up infecting 
them or being infected themselves and dying. I mean, it boggles 
my mind. Do you have any opinion on that, as a leader in our 
country?
    Mr. Carvajal. Sir, as a leader, the Director of the Bureau 
of Prisons, my responsibility is to encourage my staff to take 
the available protections, and that is what I have done. I 
certainly respect people's personal choices, though.
    Mr. Crist. Oh, yeah, I do, too. I do, too. It is just that 
I don't comprehend it very well. Maybe that is my fault.
    Anyway, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it 
very much, sir. And keep up the good work and setting a good 
example.
    Mr. Carvajal. Thank you.
    Mr. Crist. Of course.
    Mr. Cartwright. I recognize Representative Steven Palazzo 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Director Carvajal, thank you for being here today. As 
we progress through the pandemic, there was a quick realization 
that senior living facilities were a recipe for rapid community 
spread. That same notion of how close communal living created a 
risk to controlling the spread of COVID was realized by a less 
sympathized type of facility, our prisons. Myself and my office 
received several calls and texts from family members in a panic 
about their elder loved ones and their fate sitting in a prison 
during the pandemic. They closely watched as Attorney General 
Barr release updated directives regarding home confinement. It 
got to a point where it was clear that these family members in 
prison who were nonviolent offenders were qualified for home 
confinement per AG Barr's directive, but the BOP had taken no 
action on getting these individuals out. My staff resorted to 
reaching out to legislative affairs staffers within the BOP to 
move these cases along.
    It is my opinion that cutting off visitors created a huge 
problem. There was no transparency for families as to how 
prisoners were actually being treated in the new COVID 
environment. Families were now even more worried about the care 
of their relatives and the lack of communication from BOP and 
the prisoner themselves only exasperating things.
    So my question is, what are the lessons learned from the 
COVID situation of BOP, and how will this overall process be 
improved?
    Mr. Carvajal. Well, thank you, Congressman, very good 
questions. First off, I will tell you that the decision to stop 
visiting was a very difficult one. I certainly understand, 
after spending 30 years in this agency, the importance of 
visiting. And, certainly, it is part of our reentry process, 
the effect that that family contact has. So I weighed--that 
weighted heavily on me.
    But, first and foremost, as you stated earlier, our 
responsibility is to make sure that we protect and keep 
everyone safe, inmates, their families, and staff. So we had to 
think through that. I am happy to say that, as lessons learned 
and we adjusted to COVID on how we can mitigate these things, a 
lot of our institutions were able to come up with creative ways 
to build barriers and safely do this, make appointment systems, 
things of that nature so that we could reunite the families 
with the inmates. That is important. So those are some of the 
lessons learned.
    We have done the same things you see the schools are doing 
and restaurants, put up barriers, you know, spread people 
apart, limit the amount of folks in there at one time. It was a 
difficult decision, but I think it was important to do it at 
the time.
    Mr. Palazzo. Yeah, I appreciate that response.
    Also, throughout this pandemic, how many people were 
actually released to home confinement from BOP?
    Mr. Carvajal. Well, as I stated earlier, Congressman, over 
23,000 transferred to home confinement. They are still in our 
custody. A lot of people believe they were released, but they 
haven't been. And, of course, there is the compassionate 
releases. I am aware of about 3,000 of those. I will tell you 
that, off my head, people have released out of our system. And 
I don't have that current number, but I can certainly follow up 
with you total releases over the year. I can follow up with you 
on that. I am sorry, sir, I can't hear you.
    Mr. Palazzo. I didn't even touch the mute button, but 
somebody muted me. I will find out who that is later. Can you 
briefly describe the actual criteria for the compassionate home 
confinement?
    Mr. Carvajal. Okay. So, Congressman, it is a little bit--I 
know it is difficult. I have trouble remembering it sometimes, 
but the home confinement criteria is separate. The 
compassionate release criteria, the key there is extraordinary 
and compelling circumstances that wouldn't have been known at 
the time of sentencing. That is what makes it so difficult. It 
isn't listed. There is a lot of criteria. It is a very serious 
situation to look at. And the fact of COVID, obviously, it is 
COVID risk and medical. So it is not a timely process. And, 
essentially, what the compassionate release does is they are 
asking me to make a motion to the court to undo a sentence that 
was imposed by a judge in a court. That is not a quick process. 
How we alter that is we--everyone that submits a packet for 
compassionate release, we review automatically for home 
confinement because that is quickest way to get somebody into 
the community and the safest way.
    Mr. Palazzo. So, addressing those release for home 
confinement, do these folks ever go back to prison?
    Mr. Carvajal. That is a great question, Congressman, and we 
haven't got there yet. The statute did not--it didn't say 
whether or not--there was no guidance there. It didn't change 
the rule. I will tell you out of the numbers there we have 
discussed that with the oncoming administration, and I am 
waiting to have further discussion and see what we will do. But 
we do have a plan should we need to take him back.
    Mr. Palazzo. All right. Director, thank you so much for 
your time. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you. And the chair recognizes 
Congressman Ed Case for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Director, I join everybody else in thanking you for 
what is a tough job in any event but especially over the last 
year. So thank you for your service and for all of the folks 
that serve with you.
    I really just need to follow up on Congressman Crist's 
questions relative to vaccinations. Let me just ask you a 
question that it seems that we dance around. Are you able to 
compel your correctional officers who work in close quarters, 
about the closest quarters in the country, a highly difficult 
environment to start with, but, you know, tailor-made for the 
spread of COVID, are you able to compel them to be vaccinated 
as a condition of employment?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I have asked that question early 
on because of the obvious scrutiny, and, you know, the 
questions we get, and the answer to that is, no, at this point 
I cannot. The reason I cannot is because the vaccines, as they 
are issued now, have not been FDA-approved. They are under 
emergency use authorization. So I can't compel them to.
    Obviously, we have a collective bargaining agreement. So, 
at that point, should we ever make that decision, once we are 
authorized, I still have to negotiate that process 
appropriately and respecting people's rights because it will 
become a condition of employment. And if someone refused the 
vaccine, potentially may not have a job. So it is a little bit 
more of a process, but at this point in time, no, sir, I cannot 
compel them to take it. I can just make it available and 
encourage it.
    Mr. Case. You cannot compel them to take it because it is 
not fully FDA approved, and because it is not fully FDA 
approved, somehow there is some condition about this vaccine 
that calls into question whether it is a fit--I am not sure I 
follow the connection between the FDA approval and your ability 
to compel.
    Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I certainly understand because I 
don't fully understand it myself. As you are aware, I get 
guidance and counsel from people. So, between my medical 
personnel, my legal personnel, and my personnelists, the human 
resource side, we have had extensive conversation. I assure 
you, if I could compel it, just for the sake of--to me common 
sense, I would do it. But I do have to follow the rules, sir, 
and I respect that. So I can get back with you at which point 
that changes, but that is the best I can explain it to you 
right now.
    Mr. Case. Are you able to compel the inmates of the prisons 
to take a vaccine? The same reasoning, or are they not subject 
to collective bargaining agreement? Is the approval side of it 
still applicable from your understanding?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, the guidance I have been given, 
Congressman, by my medical folks and my general counsel on the 
legal aspects is the same reasoning is that I can't compel an 
inmate. We do offer it. We encourage it, but I can't make 
anyone take the vaccine.
    Mr. Case. And same question as Mr. Crist asked you as to 
the officers, have you actually offered the vaccine to all 
inmates, and what is the percentage of acceptance versus 
refusal?
    Mr. Carvajal. Great question, Congressman. As I stated 
earlier, 100 percent of our staff have been offered. On the 
inmates, and no dose goes unused with us. So we offer it--we 
get the right vaccine. We offer it to the staff. If they choose 
not to take it, we use it on inmates. There is a priority list 
for the most vulnerable. At this point in time, about 25 
percent of the population has been vaccinated. By July, the 
last thing I was told was by July, 100 percent of inmates will 
have been offered the vaccination. Okay. So I hope that----
    Mr. Case. And so that is a slightly different answer than 
the question I asked. The question I asked was, of the inmates 
offered, how many have said, ``Okay, I will do it whenever it 
happens,'' and how many have refused? Is the percentage roughly 
half as it was the case with the officers themselves?
    Mr. Carvajal. All right. Congressman, I apologize because 
that makes it clear. I don't know the answer to that. I do know 
that we utilize it, so I don't know exactly the percentage of 
how many are refusing it or opting not to take it. But I can 
follow up with you on that. I am sure we have those numbers.
    Mr. Case. Thank you very much. Let me make an observation 
in the very few seconds I have remaining, sir. The fact that 
one half of the officers are declining to take a vaccination 
that is available to them in this charge or situation is 
unexplainable. I don't know how to explain that. You have 
something like almost 40 percent of the inmates that have been 
now infected, it seems to be in one way, shape, or form by 
COVID, if I understand your statistics correctly, I apologize, 
Mr. Chair. I just want to make this point something is wrong if 
one half of the officers that can take it, don't. And I don't 
know whether that is a lack of information or a misinformation 
or some misunderstanding in the officer force, but it is a 
public health matter that that many declined to take it. And 
something is wrong there. So I will leave it at that, and I 
hope that there is an answer to that at some point.
    Mr. Cartwright. The chair recognizes Congressman Ben Cline 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Cline. I thank the chairman. I look forward to 
contributing to the subcommittee's work. I want to thank the 
ranking member and all of my colleagues on the subcommittee. 
And it is great to be a new member.
    I will take a slightly different approach to the questions, 
follow up on my colleague Congressman Palazzo's questioning 
about home confinement because I do think that the 
constitutional and other questions around forced vaccinations 
kind of--well, present themselves pretty clearly.
    But, Director Carvajal, since March 2020, BOP has 
transferred over 23,000 inmates to home confinement. How has 
the BOP monitored the significant increase in inmates outside 
of its facilities?
    Mr. Carvajal. Well, Congressman, the majority of those 
inmates, 94 percent of those inmates in community confinement, 
including home confinement, are monitored by contracts. I want 
to stress that that is one of the reasons is we really look at 
who we put out because we do take public safety and weigh that 
heavily. Those 94 percent monitors or contracts, they are not 
law enforcement officials. Okay. They are simply providing 
oversight and contracting. The other 6 percent are monitored by 
the United States Probation Office through electronic 
monitoring.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    I was a prosecutor for several years. It was local 
prosecution, but same dynamic applied. You had home confinement 
with ankle bracelets or monitoring. We had several instances 
where there were violations of home confinement. Have you seen 
any increase in the rate of violations of home confinement 
since you have transferred all 23,000 inmates to home 
confinement?
    Mr. Carvajal. That is a good question, Congressman. I am 
aware of 21 people being brought back in secure custody. Only 
one of those was a new crime. The other ones were violations. I 
don't know the numbers prior to that, Congressman, but I can 
certainly look at them. But I am aware of the 21 since passage 
of the CARES Act.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Thank you. And do you recall what that new 
crime was?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, as I said, I was trying to 
remember it. No, sir, at this point, I don't, but I can 
certainly follow up with you.
    Mr. Cline. I would appreciate that. Now, in terms of the 
contracts, are those specific to the kinds of technology that 
has to be used in a home confinement, the terms of their 
confinement, or is it pretty much left to the contracting 
agency?
    Mr. Carvajal. No, sir, in the statement of work, we spell 
out the requirements. It is for electronic monitoring. There is 
a few exceptions because it has to do with, you know, either 
disability or something of that nature. It is a very small 
percentage. The majority of them, the vast majority of them are 
electronic monitoring. Of course, there is also now cell phone 
monitoring and tracking, things of that nature, but that is 
predominantly what we do. We write that in the statement of 
work to make sure that they can meet the obligations that we 
want.
    Mr. Cline. Now, is the statement of work pretty clear on 
reporting requirements in cases of violation where any and all 
triggers of the devices have to be reported back to BOP so 
these companies can't hide a lot of the malfunctions or 
violations that might be occurring?
    Mr. Carvajal. Well, Congressman, I don't specifically know 
the answer to that, but I will tell you that we do checks on 
the contractors, obviously. Quarterly, we do unannounced checks 
on them and things of that nature. So we do monitor that. But 
to answer your particular question, I don't have that 
information. I can certainly follow up with you, sir.
    Mr. Cline. That would be great. I am just encountering this 
subject for the first time. So can you tell me how many 
different contracting businesses there are? I mean, are there 
dozens or hundreds, or how many?
    Mr. Carvajal. I believe the last count we had approximately 
80 different vendors we used. So, you know, it varies. It goes 
up and down. But it was 80 the last count.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Thank you very much. I see my time is 
running out.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    The chair recognizes Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, first thing, I left this committee about 10 years ago, 
and when I had the opportunity to come back, I decided this is 
where I wanted to be. I think the issues we have to deal with 
are extremely important. I think we have got a good team on 
both sides of the aisle. And I think if we work in a bipartisan 
way, we can get a lot accomplished. There are a lot of issues 
on the table now in what jurisdiction we do have here.
    Now, I know your employees are hardworking individuals. It 
is a tough business. I was a former prosecutor years ago and 
had to deal somewhat with the prison guards. And they really go 
all out and do as much as they can, and they need to be 
protected, including from COVID.
    Now, these hearings are about us getting answers and 
holding you and your agency accountable, but it also should 
provide us with guideposts to help address gaps, shortfalls, 
and problems. Now, the recent data--not really the recent data. 
I know, by the way, we can't force vaccination. But can't your 
medical team determine how prison staff not getting 
vaccinations are impacting rate of infections in prisons? Is it 
causing a boomerang effect of prisoners or staff getting 
infected? I know two other members also addressed this issue. 
And I think we have to address it because the numbers are real 
that we are having some problems in this regard.
    Now, the recent data from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of 
Public Health states the COVID-19 cases are often detected 
among staff before prisoners. Compared to the rest of the U.S. 
population, cases in prisons are 3.2 times more prevalent among 
prison staff and 4.6 times more prevalent among prison 
residents who then die from COVID-19 at a three times higher 
rate than same-age populations.
    Now, given this, would you characterize COVID-19 to be a 
graver danger? And I have four different questions. Would you 
characterize COVID-19 to be a grave danger? Would you be 
willing to submit to a Federal safety standard to protect your 
employees? What are you doing to prioritize vaccine 
distribution and uptake among prisoners and staff? And what 
prevents the Bureau from adopting more transparent process for 
compassionate release? You get that?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. I will tell you that we--as 
I stated earlier, our medical director and his team are in 
lockstep with CDC. So I get--I am not a doctor, so I have to 
listen to those experts. Sometimes, I will be perfectly honest 
with you, Congressman, I don't like the decisions I have to 
make. I don't like the guidance I am given, but I do listen to 
them because they are the experts. So I follow that guidance 
closely.
    And as you stated, with a vaccine, we are certainly--I 
mentioned that we were recognized for vaccine distribution. 
That is because--that is one of the things that, I think, we 
did rather well. We had a plan in place and we issued it, and 
we encourage everyone to take it. So that is something that, I 
think, is a positive.
    As far as making sure that people are safe, we certainly do 
that. I think that is a commitment we make all the time to make 
sure that we are doing everything possible to protect the 
inmates and the staff. You mentioned the staff of the 
vaccination. That is one of the reasons that we prioritize 
staff over the inmates, because the potential for them, because 
they come and go into the community--so inmates are actually 
protected under the umbrella if staff are vaccinated. That is 
one of the reasons we do that.
    And, sir, I think I missed another part of your question, 
if you could----
    Mr. Ruppersberger. What about the percentage of guards that 
are not taking shots voluntarily? And I know you have issues 
dealing with it legally, but it seems to me there has got to be 
a way to change that number, because if the guards aren't being 
protected, then the inmates aren't being protected. And that is 
a big issue and it is a big problem. And I would hope maybe you 
are under the umbrella of Justice that we really take a look at 
that and ask Justice and your attorneys to look at that. 
Because it is going to happen if nobody has the shots and these 
people--the guards on the outside get infected, and I am really 
concerned about that. I think it is one of the big issues.
    And let me say this. You have a tough job and everybody who 
works in prisons have tough jobs, and you have got to have 
integrity. You have got to work as a team to back each other 
up. It is not an easy job, and it is very easy for us to 
criticize because a lot of things happen in prison that don't 
happen other places.
    But I think until we deal with that issue and as long as 
COVID's around, until we smash it out, I think we really have 
to focus on guards protecting themselves so they protect your 
inmates. Because that is their job, basically.
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, sir, I understand. I will tell you I am 
committed to providing that information and education, and we 
continue to encourage. Because I agree that we should have as 
many vaccinated as possible, but as I stated earlier, sir, I 
can't make anyone take that vaccine.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, you know, we have got to look into 
that. I know that is what you are saying and I am not arguing 
with you. I think we really have to focus and see when you have 
certain jobs--if you want to operate on somebody in this 
country, you have to be a doctor, and it is the same thing 
here.
    We know that people are getting COVID and we can't stop it 
because they refuse to get a shot. It is not enough.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I really hope that we can focus on that 
one issue itself, because I think until we do, we are still 
going to have a lot of problems. And I read you the numbers 
from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine for that reason.
    Mr. Cartwright. It is a point well taken, Congressman 
Ruppersberger.
    And I want to now recognize Congressman Garcia for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure and 
an honor to be on CJS. This is my first subcommittee hearing. 
And thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt, for the kind welcome.
    Director Carvajal, I want to thank you for your service to 
our great Nation, not only in your current position and prior 
roles in the corrections industry, but as an Army personnel man 
as well. So thank you, sir.
    This issue of privately managed versus BOP-operated 
facilities in the midst of the COVID pandemic, using COVID 
deaths as a measure of merit, as the metric, if you will, which 
entity performed better than the other? Were the privately 
owned, privately operated facilities more successful at 
preventing COVID deaths than the government ones or vice versa?
    Mr. Carvajal. No. Congressman, that is a tough question, 
because I think that even one death, obviously, weighs heavily 
on me and it is--you know, they weigh heavily on me, even one.
    Mr. Garcia. Sure.
    Mr. Carvajal. One is too many. But I will tell you that it 
is hard to compare that because our numbers are so different. 
And, no, I don't have any data as far as percentages and all 
that. I will tell you, though, that I do believe that our staff 
have done a great job, considering the circumstances and what 
we have learned. I am happy to say there is only six inmates in 
the hospital right now, zero on vents, and I think, again, that 
shows that we have gotten a handle on this somewhat, but I do 
not have the numbers that you are talking about. I can 
certainly look them up and get back with you on that. As far as 
the----
    Mr. Garcia. That would be great. I think that is one of the 
metrics that is probably one of the most important if we are 
looking at this seriously in how to prevent it in the future. 
The number of deaths seems to be a metric we should be 
tracking.
    You mentioned early in your testimony that some of the 
privately owned contracts expired due to a lack of demand. Is 
it reasonable to infer from that statement, then, that from a 
capacity perspective, the BOP is actually doing well right now 
with what you have?
    Mr. Carvajal. What I can tell you, Congressman, is that we 
obviously have increased capacity. That was one of the things 
that we took into consideration. Now, the last few years, our 
population has trended downward. You know, it is really hard to 
predict a year or two out how many beds we are going to need, 
but somehow our research people have seemed to hit it pretty 
close. We are not predicting an increase. Certainly if 
priorities change with, you know, the front end, you know, we 
will see an increase, but that hasn't shown the case.
    And because we put the 23,000 on home confinement and 
through natural releases--you know, we release about 40,000 a 
year in general, we are at capacity right now. Right now, we 
have about 55,000 empty beds in our system right now.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. And in a nominal world outside of a 
pandemic, such as the one we have where we have early release 
options, would that be about the same vacancy rate or would you 
foresee the demand rising above the levels of capacity right 
now that you have?
    Mr. Carvajal. Again, Congressman, I don't know the exact 
numbers because I haven't looked at them, but I will tell you 
that our population was downward trending, so to speak. So one 
thing we are doing is taking advantage of this. We established 
some target pops. One of the best practices--I think this is 
related to what we have been talking about--is that we couldn't 
social distance, as I stated a couple times.
    What this lower capacity has allowed us to do, though, is 
spread that population and those open barracks. So we put a 
target percent of 50 percent capacity, and that also led to 
making it safer in the prison. Now, obviously, we won't always 
have that ability, but we are revisiting how we put capacities 
on those low open dorm types because of what we learned during 
COVID.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. Yeah, and I would just--you know, 
obviously, those low-efficiency models are unique hopefully 
only to a pandemic and that is not something we should be 
striving for in the end.
    In your estimation, at the State level, there were some 
prisons and jails that decided to release more inmates probably 
than the 23,000 that are within BOP even. In your estimation, 
did that save more lives than it ended up costing? Did that 
save more prisoners from dying of COVID than it did victims 
dying of actions as a result of prisoners on an early release 
program?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I can't answer that question 
because I don't know the data and I don't have it. So it would 
be pure speculation, and I don't want to do that, sir.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. I am out of time.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, Director.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Congressman David Trone 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I have a long-going interest in the criminal justice 
reform, and the Bureau of Prisons is certainly key to that.
    Director, I met with you in my office and your staff 6 days 
on March 3, 2020, after you came into office, and we had a 
wonderful meeting. And we gave you a whole list of things we 
wanted responses to because it was--you were new, and we never 
got those responses.
    Then on March 31, we followed up with a letter with all of 
our questions and we never got a response. On April 17, we 
followed up with another letter and we never got a response. On 
4/23, my staff met with your staff, and we never got a 
response. So we resent the letter this week because we have a 
new sheriff in town, President Biden.
    I am on this committee now, which has some oversight, and 
just a yes or a no, because I recommend to the Biden 
administration that you and your staff are incompetent and be 
fired.
    So my question for you is, can I get a yes to answering all 
of our questions?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you. That would be just great. One year 
later.
    Next question. I have been made aware the number of BOP 
facilities, including one in my region, returned FSA funding 
for long-term investments to help with eligible occupational 
training. We would like an answer on that, if you could, in 
writing as the number of dollars returned and what facilities 
returned them and why exactly they couldn't use those dollars 
to help the eligible occupational training programs which were 
put into effect to help reduce our criminal--our prison group 
of FSA funding.
    Can you get that information to us?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, I will, Congressman.
    Mr. Trone. Perfect. Thank you.
    The other issue I have suffered a bit of setbacks on is 
data collection. I think we need data in your system, and a lot 
of our requests are about that. The IRC recommended real-time 
recidivism data that shows outcomes, related information to 
effectively evaluate FSA pattern, what they call risk 
assessment instrument, and your rehabilitative programming.
    This would require significantly expanded data collection, 
evaluation, dissemination of post-release outcomes, because we 
are all about outcomes, so I can drive recidivism lower, 
including data about rearrests, unemployment, employment, and 
other post-indicators of incarceration.
    What plan does BOP have to undertake this clearly necessary 
expansion of data collection, tracking the progress of our 
incarcerate individuals from prison to reentry, home 
confinement, et cetera, and then later into supervision? And 
what resources does your office need so we can make this all 
happen?
    Mr. Carvajal. Okay. Thank you, Congressman. First of all, I 
do recall our visit, and it was a good visit. And I will tell 
you that I will certainly look into--the first I am hearing 
about these nonresponses. I assure you I will not make an 
excuse. I will find out what happened. There is a clearance 
process. It certainly shouldn't take a year, so my apologies on 
that, sir. No disrespect intended.
    I will also tell you, given the opportunity, that we are 
going to address these issues. I won't talk about what happened 
before, but I am here now and I will look at the data. I know I 
asked the same questions. Part of the money we are using for 
First Step Act is to work with outside vendors and contractors 
to do just what you are saying. I don't know why it wasn't done 
before, sir, I can't answer that question, but we are committed 
to going forward.
    Mr. Trone. Okay. You get me that information back on the 
money that was returned, where it was returned, and why we 
couldn't execute the money that you were given to help our 
returning citizens.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Trone. Quickly, we will follow up some more later, but 
private sector partnerships. We have got to give folks a fair 
shot at employment, and it shouldn't be just because of their 
criminal history that they are excluded.
    So you launched the Bureau Ready to Work initiative in June 
of 2019 to improve reentry outcomes to work directly with 
employers to hire individuals. My company has hired over 500 
returning citizens. And the question is, what were the lessons 
learned from the Ready to Work initiative, and are you planning 
another iteration of this much needed program?
    Mr. Carvajal. Well, Congressman, I know I remember 
discussing that program with you, and I certainly support it. I 
will tell you that, right now, I am not familiar with any 
numbers on that program. We have obviously been dealing with 
COVID. Now, I get reports on a lot of things. One thing that I 
certainly will get back to you on is the returning of money. I 
am certainly not aware of that. But I will find these answers 
for you, Congressman, and follow up with you.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    And we will follow up at this point also in writing too, so 
we have a beautiful trail, which I like.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    At this point, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Grace 
Meng for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to Doctor 
and Director Carvajal for being here and for your work.
    I have two questions. One is about pregnant inmates, which, 
as you know, are especially vulnerable population. According to 
national guidance, pregnant women should receive regular 
prenatal care, screening, diagnostic tests.
    Recent GAO findings indicate that the BOP's policies on 
pregnancy-related care don't align with national guidance. 
Specifically, national guidance has 16 pregnancy-related care 
topics, BOP policies fully align on only 8 of the 16.
    Just wanted to ask, what policies does the BOP have in 
place to ensure that pregnant inmates have access to regular 
quality prenatal care, and also, what sort of data is kept--
does the BOP track related to pregnant inmates?
    Mr. Carvajal. Thank you, Congresswoman. I know that I 
certainly very much interested in this, you know, pregnant 
inmates and making sure that they are safe. I will follow up 
with my medical director. I am not familiar with--I am familiar 
with what you are talking about, the recommendations and all 
that, but I am not familiar of why we aren't there. I will 
certainly find out.
    I will tell you that during COVID, we have gone above and 
beyond to make sure that those pregnant females are taken care 
of. There is only seven in our custody. The only reason that 
they remain in our custody, not in the communities, because 
they don't meet the criteria or they have mental challenges, 
things of that nature. So it is an important topic.
    I will tell you that--and this goes to Congressman Trone 
and a couple of these other issues that--of our failures in the 
past. I have established a task force recently, after speaking 
and meeting with GAO, to address some of these issues. And, 
again, I won't make excuses about why we haven't done 
something. All I can tell you is, given the opportunity going 
forward, we are going to address these things, and that task 
force is going to help me get the plans in place, find out 
where the breakdowns were, and identify these issues so that we 
can make sure that we don't repeat these things, and we have 
that information for you going forward.
    Ms. Meng. Great. Thank you.
    And then I have another question about the issue of 
solitary confinement. Last year, NPR reported the use of 
solitary confinement in prisons as a response to curb the 
spread of COVID-19. Prior to COVID, there were about 60,000 
inmates in solitary confinement. Last June, when this was 
reported, the numbers were in the hundreds of thousands, in 
both Federal and State prisons.
    Knowing that solitary confinement can cause serious 
physical and psychological harm and is actually an 
internationally recognized form of torture, wanted to ask, how 
many inmates are in solitary confinement today, how many are 
there due to COVID, and how long, on average, are inmates kept 
in solitary confinement?
    Mr. Carvajal. Okay. Congresswoman, good questions. I know 
that this is a big topic in my previous assignment and, 
honestly, coming up the ranks. I am very familiar with we call 
special housing. I don't use the word ``solitary confinement'' 
because it is not reflective of what we do. I understand your 
concerns with it, but we don't put people in there. The average 
stay is about 75 days for special housing.
    The answer to your question about how many in there for 
COVID. Zero. Should be zero. Now, we do have medical isolation, 
so we can't confuse these things, but we should not be--I am 
not aware of anyone--my expectation is that no inmates are in 
the special housing unit because of COVID. Now, I have to 
explain this. What I will say that there have been times where 
inmates who were in special housing, because that is where they 
were quartered, contacted COVID. So we obviously manage them 
there. So there is some differences there, but today, this 
morning, there was a little over 8,500 inmates in special 
housing, to answer your other question.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. Can I just ask the followup? So the 
8,500 inmates who are in there for about, on average, 75 days, 
do they have access to phone calls, to, you know, to the 
outside world?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congresswoman, they do. They are a 
little bit more restricted, depending on if they are in there 
for a disciplinary infraction. Obviously, there are sanctions 
that go with that, but, yes, inmates in special housing are 
afforded phone calls, the same opportunities as the inmates in 
general population, as much as possible, but keeping in mind 
that that is a secure area.
    So, yes, they do get access to phone calls, not as 
frequently as inmates in the general population, though.
    Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    At this point, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Brenda 
Lawrence for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Hello?
    Mr. Cartwright. Congresswoman Lawrence, I want to say, you 
may--it looks like you are logged in twice.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Oh, okay. So I will leave----
    Mr. Cartwright. Now it looks like you are logged in once, 
but we can't hear you.
    Mrs. Lawrence. So I am very special. I have to be on here 
twice.
    Mr. Cartwright. [Inaudible.]
    Mrs. Lawrence. May I start now?
    Mr. Cartwright. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much.
    I want to say thank you, first of all, to my Chairman 
Cartwright for yielding and I look forward to working with you 
as a second term member of CJS and under your leadership is an 
honor for me. I want you to know I serve as the co-chair of the 
Democratic Women's Caucus, and I want to focus on issues faced 
by too many female inmates during this pandemic.
    According to records, at one such facility, the Danbury, a 
minimum security facility called The Camp, 34 of 50 inmates 
tested positive for COVID. According to other records, there 
was a lack of hand soap in the women's bathroom, even though 
CDC guidelines specifically stressed the need to constantly 
wash your hands.
    In some instances, female inmates were rushed to other 
makeshift sleeping areas, often without notice, forcing them to 
leave behind critical, medical, and feminine hygiene products.
    So, Director, I find these reports to be incredibly 
disappointing. In the midst of a global pandemic, can you 
explain why many female inmates are not given access to basic 
female hygiene products?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congresswoman, I will also say that I find 
that unacceptable and I find it hard to believe. And if it 
happened, then I would like to know when and where, so that I 
can do something about it. I will also say that we have had 
many reports of things like this. As I stated in my comments, 
they are often mischaracterized or exaggerated.
    What we have done to counter that is I have implemented 
these teams to go unannounced. In cases such as that, in some 
facilities, I have even dispatched high-level assistant 
directors unannounced to put their eyes on these things because 
we take them very seriously.
    I absolutely don't expect that to occur in one of our 
facilities. There is ample soap and water. There is ample 
supplies. There is ample feminine hygiene products. I will also 
say this: There are times when my dispenser has been out of 
items, and I always remind people that they just need to ask 
for them.
    So I have heard those things, Congresswoman. I agree they 
are unacceptable, but I don't believe that to the level where 
people didn't have them.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Okay. You are familiar with The Camp, 
correct? The facility called The Camp?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, ma'am, I am. I was regional director in 
that region. I have visited that facility. I am very familiar 
with it.
    Mrs. Lawrence. So is it true that 34 out of 50 inmates 
tested positive?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congresswoman, I don't have the information 
for that exact facility, but I have no reason to doubt your 
numbers, especially if you got them off our website, which are 
updated daily. And we have had outbreaks at different places.
    I know Danbury was affected early on, so it is very 
possible, but I do not know and cannot confirm those exact 
numbers. I will certainly follow up with you.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Well, a couple things I want followed up on 
as well. The COVID-positive women allegedly were placed in a 
men's visiting room and did not receive over-the-counter 
medication to assist with fevers and body aches. Not only were 
the women forced to sleep under brutal circumstances, they were 
not provided the basic necessities to treat these symptoms.
    I need to know, because I have visited prisons, and I have 
been told that, because of the budget, that each facility is 
given the same budget. And so because female products cost 
more, women are not given the adequate amount. And I would 
appreciate--so in this report, and I will get you the report in 
case you haven't seen it, a pregnant inmate shared a story of a 
bunkmate who had developed a cough, yet you know the Bureau of 
Prisons was not able to quickly respond with testing inmates in 
these populated conditions.
    Were pregnant inmates granted priority status for 
consideration of home confinement?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congresswoman, first of all, I would like to 
follow up with you to get that information, because if that 
occurred, I want to know about it. It is the first I have heard 
about it. I will answer your other question.
    Yes, they were. When pregnant females, when COVID hit, as 
we learned more about it, we made sure that we had ample space 
in our RRCs and our programs to get them out as quickly as 
possible, again, taking into account that I still have to 
follow the rules and the law and public safety.
    So at current time, there is only 15 pregnant females in 
the Bureau of Prisons, seven of them are in custody in our 
facilities and it is because they don't meet the criteria to go 
out to the community, otherwise, I would have already placed 
them there.
    So, yes, they are given ample consideration. We do 
everything possible to get them into community placement.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. I thank you, Congresswoman.
    We are going to start a second round. We will be called to 
votes probably within 20 or so minutes, so we will get as much 
of the second round in as we can before we go to vote.
    I will recognize myself for another 5 minutes of questions.
    Director, I became a Congressman in January of 2013. In 
February of 2013, Eric Williams was killed. He was a 
correctional officer, 34 years old, at USP Canaan in Wayne 
County, Pennsylvania. He was patrolling on his own in USP 
Canaan, and he was jumped by a vicious, violent criminal by the 
name of Jessie Con-Ui. Con-Ui jumped him. He had a shiv. He 
stabbed Eric Williams over 200 times, and Eric Williams died.
    I dare say you have got to know Don Williams, Eric's 
father, since then, and you are very familiar with this whole 
story. But it happened in my backyard when I was a brand-new 
Congressman, and it shocked me that Eric Williams was made to 
patrol on his own. And there was absolutely no doubt in my mind 
that if he had had a partner patrolling with him, that never 
would have happened.
    And so this question of augmentation, of using statistics 
to talk about the correctional officer to inmate ratio has come 
up, and it has been a thorn in the side of the whole system the 
whole time that I have been in Congress. You mentioned it. You 
mentioned your commitment at the top of this hearing. You 
mentioned your commitment to increasing that correctional 
officer to inmate ratio, which is clearly the answer for 
tragedies like that.
    Would you tell us exactly what you have in mind? What is 
your plan, and how can we be assured that you are not going to 
include psychologists and art teachers in your statistics?
    Mr. Carvajal. Thank you, Chairman. I am very familiar with 
the Eric Williams story, and I certainly had the honor to meet 
Mr. Williams and get to know him when I was regional director 
up there. I was a warden in a high-security penitentiary when 
that happened, and it certainly hits home. So that stuff 
bothers me. And I will tell you that, when I told you that we 
are working on this, I am absolutely committed to addressing 
those issues.
    Now, I have to explain--and I am sure you have heard this, 
because I know you are very familiar with the facility and with 
the agency, but augmentation has always been a part and always 
will be of the Bureau of Prisons. We are all correctional 
workers. That is what allows us to actually function in times 
like COVID. The key there is the overreliance. That is what I 
am committed to making sure we get rid of.
    And I certainly agree with you, Congressman, that using 
other staff at correctional posts is not a good idea when we 
overrely on it. So we have started a hiring initiative. I 
mentioned that. 100 percent of staffing. We are committed to 
doing that. What makes that difference--I know it sounds like 
it should be common sense, but what makes that difference is we 
did something different.
    I shut down all internal selections. Now, that came with 
some scrutiny obviously. I am holding people's promotions up, 
but we can't have it both ways. I want to focus all resources 
to fill those 100 percent vacancies. Okay?
    So, obviously, more staff in those units, those prisons 
makes us safer. That is the number one commitment.
    The other thing we are willing to do, and we started doing, 
and you may have seen it in the GAO audit, was that we have 
been scrutinized for how we staff our facilities. So I am 
taking advantage of this time with our capacity low and we are 
reviewing our capacity of each facility and we are making sure 
that we have the appropriate number of staff at each facility 
by security level, by mission, by operation, to make sure that 
we can adequately program but keep people safe. And that sounds 
very basic, but it is difficult to do. Our staffing guidelines 
are somewhat antiquated. It is time to modernize them, and we 
have begun that process.
    So my commitment going forward, Chairman, is that we are 
going to do everything possible to make sure that incidents 
like that don't happen again, and that we put the appropriate 
number of staff. I look forward to working with the department, 
and we appreciate the support from this committee in providing 
us those resources.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, it is not just for the protection of 
the correctional officers; it is also for the safety of the 
inmates.
    What I will ask you is will you make a commitment to share 
with me and this committee, this subcommittee, the actual CO 
numbers, leaving out all of the other noncorrectional officers, 
share those CO numbers as compared to the inmate population?
    Mr. Carvajal. Okay. So right now, Congressman, I told you 
we have a little over 37,000--I was talking in approximates 
because these numbers change----
    Mr. Cartwright. I don't mean right now; I mean----
    Mr. Carvajal. Oh, yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. Every couple of months moving 
forward, so we can all work together on the project.
    Mr. Carvajal. Absolutely, sir. Right now, we have about 
13,500 correctional officers. 1,200 vacancies specifically that 
we are working on.
    So, yes, I will share them.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    And I am going to recognize Ranking Member Aderholt for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yes, Director, I know that the Bureau of Prisons contract-
operated facilities provide a wide range of programs to serve 
their inmates, many of which have been made priority under the 
First Step Act and that have demonstrated that they reduce 
recidivism. These include literacy programs, job training, 
residential drug abuse programs, anger management, and mental 
health treatment.
    My question is, can the Bureau of Prisons guarantee that no 
inmates' programs or treatments will be interrupted or won't be 
discontinued or diminished as a result of complying with the 
executive order that I mentioned about the closures?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, if I understand and I heard you 
correctly, I can't guarantee that, sir, not for the reasons you 
said, though. In the normal course of running a prison, we 
often run into issues where we have to stop programming. And as 
I stated earlier, through COVID was an example, where we have 
crisis and it does affect it.
    What I can do is commit to you, though, that we are going 
to implement the First Step Act and make sure that inmates have 
all the available resources to earn those time credits and to 
get those opportunities. That is half of our mission.
    Everybody thinks that we just keep them in. Well, the 
safety and security is half of our mission, but the reentry and 
providing those programs is just as important. So we are 
committed to doing that, yes, sir.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes. So there could be some programs or 
treatments that would be interrupted if this executive order, 
when it is put into place?
    Mr. Carvajal. No, sir. I can't directly relate it to the 
executive order, because I don't believe--if I am understanding 
your question, that doesn't have anything to do with the 
ability of us to provide programs.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Well, I guess my question is that, if 
they have to be transferred, then there will be interruption 
with some of these programs and--so that is what I was 
referring to.
    Mr. Carvajal. Okay. Yes, sir. I understand now. Yes, sir, 
obviously in the course of any transfers, we do interrupt 
programming. One of the things that we are trying to do to 
mitigate that going forward across the board is to make sure 
that we have consistent programming throughout, so that if an 
inmate transfers from one location to another, that he can 
resume his programming at the other place. And we try to do 
that as much as possible.
    Our goal is for them to successfully complete programs, so 
that is always viewed. And we have even made adjustments so 
that an inmate could finish a program, because that is our goal 
is to get them to complete these programs.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. And bear in mind, I understand that, 
you know, I think there is a role for private prisons, just 
like there is a role--but we also need to have the Bureau 
running prisons, so I understand there is a partnership there, 
where there is room for both. But it is not uncommon, as you 
know, to hear people say that contract-operated facilities are 
less safe than Bureau of Prisons managed facilities.
    But isn't it true that the 2016 Office of Inspector General 
report on Bureau of Prisons monitoring contract prisons showed 
that privately managed facilities, that they audited and 
performed better in several key categories, including fewer 
suicides, fewer positive drug tests, fewer drug confiscation, 
less inmate sexual misconduct, and just overall grievances? Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I am familiar with what you are 
talking about. First thing I would like to point out is that, 
as silly as it sounds, it is like comparing apples and oranges. 
The inmates that we place in the privates are low-security 
criminal alien population with not a lot of disciplinary on 
them. They have short sentences. They are waiting deportation 
in many cases. So they don't get a lot of our serious 
offenders. We keep those ourselves.
    And I will tell you also that we follow the guidance given, 
sir. We are required to follow the executive order.
    I will tell you that we have worked well with the privates. 
As you mentioned partner, I will say that. We rely on them. We 
have in the past. So it is not my position to talk about 
whether or not they perform better or not.
    I will tell you this: They have met their contracts, and 
that means that they have performed with what we expect them to 
do within the statement of work.
    So with that said, sir, you know, we have to follow the 
executive orders, and that is the best I can tell you on that. 
But it isn't any decision made because we don't think they are 
performing; I am just doing what I am told to do.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, but the bottom line is, you don't 
believe that contract facilities that you oversee are unsafe?
    Mr. Carvajal. If I believe that the contract facilities are 
unsafe? Was that the question, sir? I want to make sure I 
understood.
    Mr. Aderholt. No. I am saying you don't believe that any 
facilities that you are contracted with that you oversee, that 
they are unsafe places for the prisoners. Is that correct?
    Mr. Carvajal. No, sir, I don't believe that. They are 
meeting their obligations or we wouldn't utilize them. They 
have to meet the standards or we won't use them.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes, sir. That was my question. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    The chair recognizes Congressman Ed Case for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair.
    Director, I am still stuck on my prior line of questioning 
and trying to understand that a little bit further, just so I 
can try to isolate what the actual issues are.
    You previously said that roughly half of the correctional 
officers had, thus far at least, declined to be vaccinated, 
even though, as I understand it, the vaccine, the 80,000 doses 
that you testified were available, were made available first to 
the correctional officers. Is that right, first of all?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman, with one exception. They 
are made available to all of our staff. 100 percent of our 
staff, unless they were on leave or something, it has been made 
available. And for those who weren't available, they can 
request it at this point.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Understood. I guess the point I am trying 
to make is that you could have had, with the available 
vaccinations to date, you could have had 100 percent in your 
officers if they had decided to all take it, right?
    Mr. Carvajal. I don't know, Congressman. I mean, I 
understand what you are saying that, you know, the simple math, 
but, you know, keep in mind that we have all staff. You know, 
we have about 13,000 correctional officers, but I am talking 
about all of our staff, the 37,000 that have been offered. 
Certainly if they accepted, you know, we very well may be at 
100 percent.
    Mr. Case. Yeah. Well, I am just taking 37,000 and times-ing 
it by two. That is, you know, less than the 80,000. So I am 
just making--we don't have to get into the exactness of this. I 
am just saying that, in my understanding, virtually all of your 
correctional officers could have been vaccinated to date and 
yet didn't. And so your answer when I asked you why not was, 
you said, can they be compelled to do it? You said, A, the 
interpretation of FDA emergency versus permanent approval and, 
B, you made mention of the collective bargaining agreements.
    So let me just tick off the collective bargaining agreement 
side of it for these purposes. Have there been discussions with 
the representatives of the collective bargaining units for the 
correction officers about taking the vaccine? Is that a subject 
of negotiation right now? Are there conditions being placed on 
whether officers will or won't take it? For example, is there a 
disagreement over, you know, hazard pay or something like that?
    Mr. Carvajal. No, Congressman. If I am understanding your 
question, the answer to that is no. Now, I will tell you that 
we have had informal discussions. We have open line of 
communication with the union, but at this point, we have not 
approached them formally, because as I stated earlier, sir, I 
listen to the experts, and in the case of the vaccinations, 
what my doctor, my medical director tells me and his staff and, 
of course, the legal side of the house and then there is the 
labor side.
    We have informally discussed this with the national union 
executives. We have informally, though. We haven't done any 
formal type of approach, but we are in constant discussion with 
them.
    Mr. Case. Okay. So at this point, it seems that, whether we 
like it or not, we are in a voluntary situation. And 
voluntarily, you could have those discussions with the 
collective bargaining union representatives. But let me cover 
the other side of this equation.
    Do you have the sense that the--what is your sense of why 
half of the correctional officers have not been vaccinated? 
That is much, much higher than any sense I have of the general 
population in terms of would you take it if you could. My 
understanding is that is somewhere around three-quarters, give 
or take.
    In any event, it doesn't matter. It is 50 percent versus 
higher, I think you would say, for the general--so I am asking 
the question, why do you think that is? Are they--what kind of 
information are they being given about the benefits of 
vaccinations, especially in the context of their work 
environment where it is absolutely tangibly a risk, you know, 
to themselves and to their fellow officers and to the folks in 
those institutions? Why do you think that they are not taking 
this in higher numbers? And what do you think you can do about 
it?
    Mr. Carvajal. Well, Congressman, what I can do about it is 
what we have continued to do is that we absolutely encourage 
it. We set the example. Most of our leaders were the first to 
take it. And a lot of times, again, to go back to our 
relationship with the union, our union leadership has partnered 
with us to make that example and encourage the staff.
    Mr. Case. Have you distributed information to all 
correctional officers saying this is the objective science, 
public health recommendations of taking a vaccination? This is 
the reality. Is that out there in the field?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, it is, Congressman. And I will tell you, 
I have also done video messages. We encourage it at every level 
to encourage them to take the vaccine.
    The one question that I can't answer, sir, is what I think 
about it because it would be purely my opinion and that is 
irrelevant here, because I can't make a determination for 
someone to make a personal choice whether or not they are going 
to be vaccinated and--you know, certainly I have an opinion on 
that, but I don't think it is appropriate to share it. I will 
just tell you that I respect that of someone making that 
choice, and I will leave it at that.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Director. I would 
suggest that perhaps you can ask them to understand what more 
you--if you haven't already, some systematic asking of them 
doesn't violate their privacy. They can answer or not.
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, sir. Point taken.
    Mr. Cartwright. We are now going to move to Mr. Palazzo for 
questions. And I would ask that Congressman Palazzo keep to 3 
minutes so we can get through the remaining members before we 
have impending votes and we don't have to adjourn and try to 
come back.
    Remember, all members can submit written questions that 
will be transmitted to the witness and will be expected to be 
answered.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Palazzo.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I may be like some of the other members on this call, a lot 
of this is new to me. So I appreciate the director's patience 
with us in helping to explain, you know, and prying answers to 
our questions.
    Just sitting on the call, you know, I started having other 
questions. Why were private prisons--what is the history behind 
the private prisons? What brought them into creation? And do 
they specialize in a certain class like the criminal aliens? 
Can you provide some context, please?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. I would be probably 
stretching it if I told you I knew the history of why we use 
them. I will tell you what I know. From the last part of my 
career or when we started using them or if there was mandates, 
I don't know the answer to those questions. What I will tell 
you is this: We have partnered with them. At the peak of our 
population, when we were at 220,000, we absolutely needed their 
bed space, and that is how this was utilized. That is why they 
maintain and we tend to send them the criminal aliens. They are 
usually 150-month sentence or less, you know. They are not in 
for violent crimes at times like that. That is who we place in 
those prisons. And then we keep the people that we need to 
manage on our side. But that is the best I can do to tell you 
that we relied on their bed space at one point. We just don't 
need it now.
    Mr. Palazzo. All right. How many people are actually in 
private prisons? How many inmates, Federal prisons?
    Mr. Carvajal. Today, sir, about 13,000 or so. Again, the 
number changes daily.
    Mr. Palazzo. And these private facilities, were they 
constructed with private dollars or is these dollars that the 
Federal Government provided? What will happen to those 
facilities if the contracts are not extended and what also will 
happen with the prisoners? Where will they go?
    Mr. Carvajal. Okay, Congressman. So the inmates, obviously, 
we will take back into our custody and spread them out through 
our capacity as appropriate.
    As far as answering what happens to the prisoners, number 
one, there is only one prison that we own that was a private, 
and we took it back over when we closed it down for structural 
reasons. That was Taft. So that is in our inventory. That is 
our facility.
    As far as all the other facilities, the 10 that we 
currently have, they belong to the private, sir, and I can't 
answer what they will be used for. You would have to ask the 
vendors about that. But they are not our facilities. We just 
pay them to house our inmates.
    Mr. Palazzo. Okay. I do appreciate that. And I know the 
government, from time to time, identifies things to privatize 
because sometimes they can save the taxpayer dollars in these 
tight, and soon to be even tighter, fiscal times. We need to 
make sure that we are keeping costs low and quality of services 
high.
    So, again, Director, thank you very much.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    And the chair recognizes Mr. Ruppersberger for 3 minutes.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Hello? Can you hear me? Okay, great. Got 
it. Show time.
    I want to get back to the question of safety standards in 
prison. High rates of preexisting respiratory and cardiac 
conditions are factors that can exacerbate the spread of COVID-
19 among the 2-plus million people incarcerated in American 
jails, prisons, and correctional facilities.
    Now, policies that have potential to curb the spread of the 
disease include the early release of prisoners unlikely to pose 
a risk of re-offending, implementing strong infection control 
practices, and using widespread testing. Now, health and safety 
standards in prison is the key to maintaining health in prison 
populations and also health staff in the prisons.
    In Baltimore, part of my district, a class action lawsuit 
has been filed over the rapid rate of infection, and prisoners 
are saying they are not being kept safe, nor given the cleaning 
products necessary to keep themselves safe.
    So I have two questions, basically. How many of your 
facilities do you believe meet standards for safe ventilation? 
And, secondly, is your medical staffing and standards of 
medical care for residents merit all the current needs where 
there is likely to be continued gaps in services? And if not, 
what are those needs?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I think the easy answer to tell 
you is a yes. We abide by the standards. We undergo ACA 
accreditation. That is a third party who comes in and looks at 
us. It is a very stringent process. We have our own internal 
processes. We have the OIG and the GAO who are always reviewing 
our facilities.
    And as far as the medical standards and processes, we have, 
again, accreditations that they go through. And certainly we 
deal with the CDC, other public health organizations like that.
    So to answer your question, if we aren't up to standard, we 
are pretty much told by someone or we figure it out on our own. 
To date right now, yes, we are up to standard, sir, and we take 
that very serious. In fact, it is something that we commit to 
do doing, making sure we are running a safe environment.
    As far as, again, the ability for someone to have the 
safety net inside the prison, when we know about these things, 
we certainly look into them. I have heard of many of these 
allegations and I assure you, before I became director, there 
was no such thing as unannounced inspections. And I have done 
many of them. In fact, most all of our facilities have 
undergone inspections for the reason you said, to ensure we are 
doing what we are supposed to.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. All right. It is still in my crawl from 
the last questioning, the fact that you have prison guards that 
refuse to take a test and you don't have the authority to say 
that is part of your employment when, in fact, by not taking a 
test, these prison guards can infect, you know, prisoners who 
have to be in that prison from COVID.
    To me, that is very difficult, and we have got to find a 
way to work around that. For whatever reasons they have for not 
taking the test, we cannot allow that point of view to affect 
the health, safety, and welfare of those prisoners. And that 
is--really, we have got to focus on that. Again, I am just 
bringing it up for emphasis.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. The emphasis is noted and appreciated.
    And the chair recognizes Congressman Ben Cline for 3 
minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
    I wanted to ask about the majority of BOP inmates in 
contractor-operated facilities who are sentenced criminal 
aliens. What is happening to them upon the closure of these 
facilities? Are they just being--is there any effort to, after 
they are finished with their sentence, deport them, or what 
kind of consideration is being given to where they are being 
transferred?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. Very good question. The 
determination to whether or not they would be deported is--ICE 
makes that determination. We have an immigration hearing 
program. We have, I believe, 24 sites. We work in close 
coordination with ICE. They hold those hearings. They make the 
actual determination of whether or not to deport somebody.
    To answer the first part of your question, those inmates 
currently in the privates that are closing, they will be 
absorbed back into our facilities. We will do our best to keep 
them and certainly in the areas somewhat where they were, but 
it will be on bed space availability and the needs of the 
agency, though.
    Mr. Cline. All right. Can you outline for me, going back to 
my original questions about home confinement, some of the 
factors that you consider as you determine whether to send to 
home confinement?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, sir, I can. There is a bit of a list 
here, so please cut me off if you think I am going--
    Mr. Cline. Is severity of the offense one of the factors?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes. There is four hard criteria, 
Congressman. The easiest thing to tell you is that you cannot 
have a primary offense of violence, a sex offense, a terrorism, 
or have a detainer. Those are nondiscretionary. If you fit into 
one of those categories, we are not putting you out, because 
public safety is also in there. We take that very serious.
    Mr. Cline. Prior record?
    Mr. Carvajal. Sir?
    Mr. Cline. Is prior record considered?
    Mr. Carvajal. Prior record, yes, sir. Well, disciplinary 
history inside is looked at, but there is several other--I call 
them discretionary because we have looked at those, and we have 
a committee at times that review them and we make sure that we 
are maximizing the use, keeping, in fact, public health, public 
safety, as well as the inmate's safety.
    Mr. Cline. What about immigration status, is that----
    Mr. Carvajal. Oh, absolutely, sir. If you have a detainer, 
you can't go out on home confinement.
    Mr. Cline. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other 
questions. I appreciate your help with that.
    Mr. Cartwright. Sure. One followup from Mr. Cline's 
question. He mentioned prior record. I think what he meant was, 
suppose you are in for a nonviolent marijuana offense, but in 
the past you have had a violent offense on your rap sheet that 
you got convicted of. Is that considered?
    Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, the answer to that is yes, 
because we look at each individual and we assess them in 
totality of the circumstance. All of that is taken into 
consideration. In those cases where something like that, we 
would reach out through the Department of Justice to the United 
States Attorney's Office and get their input, maybe something 
to follow up on to see what type of crime it was or if it fits 
that. But, yes, it is looked at and is taken into 
consideration.
    The U.S. Attorney's Office also has the ability to provide 
us information on objective to that of whether or not they 
support us releasing that individual.
    Mr. Cartwright. Very good. Thank you.
    I recognize Mr. Trone for 3 minutes.
    Mr. Trone. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let's talk about the First Step Act. This was a step in the 
right direction, totally bipartisan, very good work done by 
Congress and the President. And in fiscal 2020, Congress 
included $75 million funding to begin implementation. In fiscal 
2021, we included $400 million to begin--to move forward 
implementation.
    Part of the First Step Act implementation required the 
Independent Review Commission do a report. That report came out 
just recently in December. The report found, and I quote: Even 
a full return to pre-COVID BOP programming levels will not be 
sufficient to make available the, quote, evidence-based 
recidivism reduction programs and productive activities for all 
eligible prisoners in Bureau custody by January 2022, when it 
was required by the FSA legislation. The Bureau requires 
significant additional appropriations in order to muster the 
personnel and programming access necessary to achieve that 
goal.
    So what kind of programming and how much additional funding 
will be required for all eligible prisoners in the Bureau's 
custody to access some really good things--occupational 
training, educational classes, behavioral therapy, drug 
treatment--that are all required by the FSA?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. Thank you. First, we 
certainly appreciate the $409 million provided by this 
committee in our budget and we are going to put it to good use. 
With some of the things you mentioned, we have over 80 
evidence-based recidivism reducing programs and productive 
activities. Even through COVID, even though it did hinder our 
ability, we still had 51,000 inmates enrolled in those programs 
and productive activities, and over 21,000 of them had a 
completion.
    So I read the report, sir. I was a little bit shocked about 
the IRC's recommendation because we work closely with them. We 
are expanding capacity. We are utilizing the funds provided by 
Congress to ensure that we hire up. That is part of our hiring. 
A lot of those were First Step Act positions, specific to 
expand the programs you mentioned--vocational career technical 
education, things of that nature.
    Mr. Trone. We are running out of time, but, quickly, could 
you get back to us in the office in writing? We have got 9 
months to get completed as a First Step Act, a bipartisan piece 
of legislation required. And the IRC said it will not happen at 
the current rate. So we would like to know how it is going to 
happen in the next 9 months, and if it is not, what you need so 
we can help you implement the First Step Act as Congress and 
President Trump initiated? Thank you.
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, sir. We look forward to working with the 
department to ensure that we have the resources to implement 
it. We are committed to making this happen, Congressman. I 
assure you.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. The chair recognizes Mr. Garcia 
for 3 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Carvajal, thanks again. I empathize with you and 
for you sitting in a body of legislators asking you why you are 
not mandating a regulation that you have no control over. That 
seems like it would either come out of the legislative branch 
or an executive order of some sort. I don't support mandatory 
vaccines as a qualification to work in any capacity. But I also 
think it is rational that, if that path is taken, it should be 
directed from the Federal Government and not up to individual 
directors within Federal agencies. So I apologize for the many 
questions on that to you.
    I would like to ask for two pieces of data if we can get 
submitted to the record. The first is to my first question 
earlier, a metric of percentage of death rate within both the 
privately operated and also BOP-operated facilities. And then 
the second, if we can get a count of victim deaths as a result 
of early release prisoners in the midst of the pandemic. I 
think those two metrics, I know are not in front of you but 
should be attainable; if we can get those added to the record, 
just part of your testimony, that would be fantastic. Does that 
sound doable?
    Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. I am not sure what it would 
take to get those, but I will certainly follow up with your 
office and let you know that we can either provide them to you 
or why we cannot.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
    And I will just end with a question. How is correction 
officer and staff retention and recruiting right now? And if it 
is suffering or depressed in any way, what can we in this body 
here, especially in the subcommittee, do to help you attract 
and retain talent?
    Mr. Carvajal. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congressman, because that is one of our biggest challenges. 
That is what we are doing with our hiring initiative. As you 
know, I mentioned staff retention also.
    I am happy to say that, even through COVID last year, as 
tough as that was, we hired over 3,800 staff, but we lost as 
many. So, again, to balance out. So we are working on 
retention, and we are trying it do things to improve safety and 
make sure that staff know we are committed to doing that.
    I think, Congressman, the biggest thing that we could get 
from this body and really all of the Members of Congress is 
positive support. Certainly, people that live in your 
constituency, tell them we are hiring. Tell them we are hiring. 
I have jobs available. I see millions of people out of work, 
and we are hiring right now. And we have great jobs, and it is 
a great way to do public service. And our slogan: Come work on 
the inside. That is what we can use from you.
    We appreciate the resources that this committee has 
provided. We certainly put them to good use. But I think 
helping with this positive message in the community that we are 
not a broken organization. We certainly can use improvement. I 
am committed to doing that. But we have jobs available right 
now. Thank you.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. And I am committed to 
supporting you in that effort as well.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    And members, that concludes our second round. And we are 
going to stop there. And I am going to remind all the members 
that we have provided you an email address, which you can use 
to submit written questions to Director Carvajal. And he has 
evidenced a willingness to go ahead and answer those.
    And, Director Carvajal, we are going to take your promises 
at face value and, in that light and in that spirit, look 
forward to working with you to keep us posted. We need to know 
these answers to properly fund the Bureau of Prisons and make 
sure you have the tools that you need to carry out your mission 
in an ethical, in a humane, and in a practical way that the 
American people expect. So thank you for joining us. This is 
the end of the hearing. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you 
all very much.
    [Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice did not respond 
to additional questions for the record in time for publication 
of this hearing]

                                         Wednesday, March 24, 2021.

     MANAGEMENT, PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES, AND COVID RESPONSE AT THE 
                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                WITNESS

MICHAEL HOROWITZ, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin.
    At this hearing, we are fully virtual, so we have to 
address a few housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition, for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I may ask you if you 
would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by 
nodding, staff will then unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When 
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the 
chair and ranking member. Then, members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority. And, finally, members not present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    So good morning, everybody, and welcome to our second CJS 
hearing of the year.
    Today, we welcome Michael Horowitz, Inspector General for 
the Department of Justice, a position he has held since 2012. 
He has also served as Chair of the Council of Inspectors 
General on Integrity and Efficiency, which is comprised of all 
73 Federal Inspectors General.
    Prior to leading the Office of Inspector General, he spent 
a decade in private practice, during which time he also served 
as a commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and, from 
1989 to 2002, he served in a range of significant positions as 
a Federal prosecutor and within the Department's Criminal 
Division.
    The Inspector General occupies a unique position, with 
responsibility to oversee the operation and performance of the 
Department of Justice and promote the Department's integrity, 
efficiency, and accountability. This is especially important 
now when we are struggling to recover from a global pandemic.
    In 2020, OIG, Office of Inspector General, received $2 
million to oversee DOJ administration of $1 billion in CARES 
Act funding. This is on top of its important work in overseeing 
a sprawling $33 billion department.
    We will be especially interested in hearing your 
observations about how DOJ is addressing its COVID-19 
challenges and correcting any missteps it might have made 
during the pandemic, including its administration, as I said, 
of $1 billion in CARES Act funding.
    In its 2013 edition of its ``Top Management and Performance 
Challenges for the Department,'' leading your list of six 
priorities, General Horowitz, were ``the growing crisis in the 
Federal prison system'' and ``safeguarding national security 
consistent with civil rights and liberties.''
    Seven years later, the lead was, quote, ``public confidence 
in law enforcement and protecting civil liberties,'' unquote, 
and, quote, ``use of sensitive investigative authorities,'' 
unquote, followed by ``planning in response to a global 
pandemic,'' and ``a safe, secure, and humane prison system.''
    Now, I know these lists don't represent a priority order. 
It is hard not to be struck by the consistency of these 
challenges, while noting the nuances and the changes that seem 
to resonate with the times. I will be interested to hear your 
thoughts on the persistent nature of these challenges, in 
addition to what specific steps are being taken to ensure they 
are being addressed.
    I also expect today we will cover a wide range of topics in 
addition to those already mentioned. We will begin with a focus 
on DOJ's performance in handling the pandemic and also focus on 
the challenges DOJ faces in dealing with the tragic events such 
as the January 6 insurrection and the rise of violent extremism 
in our Nation.
    We will want to the hear about how DOJ is dealing with 
other significant challenges facing the Department, such as 
efforts by the Department to improve police and community 
relations; to advance civil rights and civil liberties; racism, 
hate crimes, and the rise of violent crime in our cities; the 
never-ending scourge of opioid trafficking; foreign influence 
and cyber threats; and the challenge of protecting voting 
rights and institutional integrity.
    So, once again, welcome, Inspector General Horowitz. We 
look forward to your testimony.
    And, at this point, I want to turn to my distinguished 
ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, good morning, Chairman Cartwright. And 
it is good to be with the subcommittee virtually this morning. 
And I appreciate your yielding for this hearing that we are 
having this morning. I am pleased to be here to discuss the 
Department of Justice management, performance challenges, and 
COVID response with our witness, the Honorable Michael 
Horowitz.
    Mr. Horowitz, let me just say we value your efforts to 
promote integrity and efficiency at the Department of Justice. 
And, of course, we have worked with you for many years now and 
we can attest that you have led by example. You have led the 
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General for, I think, 
close to 9 or 10 years now, and you have proven yourself to be 
effective as well as impartial and dedicated to your work. And 
we appreciate your willingness to answer sometimes hard 
questions. And we appreciate your command of all the many, many 
programs and activities at the Department of Justice, from the 
matters that dominate the national headlines down to your 
detailed oversight of your own annual budget.
    And I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude to 
you also for serving in a most critical role during an 
unprecedented time, and that is your role in leading the 
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, heading up the 
effort to prevent and to detect waste, fraud, and abuse and 
mismanagement and to mitigate risk associated with trillions of 
dollars in Federal spending. That is no small task, but we know 
you are up to the challenge.
    I look forward to the opportunity to discuss with you today 
several challenges that face the Department of Justice, 
including the crisis at our southern border, challenges facing 
Department of Justice detention components, and the scourge of 
child exploitation.
    Chairman Cartwright, thank you again for holding the 
hearing today, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
    Well, Inspector General Horowitz, you are recognized at 
this time for your opening remarks. This is not your first 
rodeo; you have testified many times in front of congressional 
committees and subcommittees. So you know it is a 5-minute 
rule. Please try to keep your statement to 5 minutes. And, as 
always, your full written statement will be included in the 
record.
    You are recognized, Inspector General Horowitz.
    Mr. Horowitz. Thank you very much, Chairman Cartwright, 
Ranking Member Aderholt, members of the subcommittee. I 
appreciate the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on 
management and performance challenges at DOJ and its COVID-19 
pandemic response.
    In our most recent top management challenges report, as the 
chairman indicated, we identified nine specific challenges 
facing the Department. In light of recent events, I am going to 
briefly focus on five of those challenges. They are: countering 
domestic and international terrorism; protecting against cyber-
related threats; strengthening public confidence in law 
enforcement; responding to the global pandemic; and managing 
the Federal prison system, a challenge that has been on every 
one of the reports since I have been Inspector General.
    First, countering domestic and international terrorism. 
Enhancing national security and countering domestic and foreign 
terrorism threats remain top priorities for DOJ and for good 
reason. The OIG is continuing to conduct vigorous oversight of 
DOJ's efforts to address these growing threats. Indeed, shortly 
after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the OIG initiated a 
review to examine DOJ's role and activity in preparing for and 
responding to those events. And, as our past oversight 
demonstrates, the terrorism risk includes threats from both 
domestic violent extremists and homegrown violent extremists. 
We will continue to closely monitor and oversee DOJ's 
counterterrorism programs and activities.
    Second, cyber-related threats. The recent SolarWinds 
incident demonstrates the vulnerability of IT systems and 
presents a clear warning that DOJ must remain vigilant. I am 
coordinating with my IG counterparts at agencies impacted by 
the SolarWinds incident and assessing how we can best conduct 
additional oversight work in this area. My office also 
continues to conduct our periodic audits of DOJ IT systems 
pursuant to the Federal Information Security Modernization Act, 
or FISMA. Those reviews regularly identify important 
recommendations to improve DOJ's IT security posture.
    Third, strengthening public confidence in law enforcement. 
As events over the past year demonstrate, strengthening public 
confidence in law enforcement and protecting individuals' civil 
liberties is of paramount importance. We are currently 
reviewing the DOJ's response to events in Washington this past 
summer and separately investigating use-of-force allegations 
involving DOJ personnel in Portland, Oregon.
    Additionally, DOJ must ensure that, in exercising its law 
enforcement authorities, its components adhere to policies 
designed to protect individuals' privacy. Our December 2019 
review of certain FISA warrants found fundamental and serious 
deficiencies. Further, an OIG follow-on report identified 
significant compliance concerns with the FBI's FISA factual 
accuracy documentation process. The OIG is continuing to 
monitor the DOJ's and FBI's implementation of recommendations 
from these reports.
    Fourth, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The DOJ faces 
a variety of challenges in this area, including preventing the 
spread of the virus among Federal inmates and detainees in BOP 
and U.S. Marshals custody. The DOJ also must effectively manage 
about a billion dollars, as the chairman noted, in CARES Act 
funding and operate the Nation's immigration courts in a manner 
that minimizes risk while preserving individual rights.
    Over the past year, the OIG has devoted substantial 
resources to these oversight efforts, from conducting 16 remote 
inspections of BOP facilities to reviewing the Marshals Service 
COVID-19 response. In the coming months, we will release our 
oversight reports on the Executive Office for Immigration 
Reviews' response to the pandemic, the BOP's use of home 
confinement, and OJP's handling of the CARES Act grant funding.
    Fifth, maintaining a safe, secure, and humane prison 
system. This has been a regular challenge we have identified. 
And, most recently, we found that, despite a declining inmate 
population, the BOP continues to experience significant 
staffing shortages of correctional officers, medical staff, and 
other positions. These shortages and associated safety issues 
require continued vigilance and is an area the OIG continues to 
conduct important oversight in.
    Lastly, I want to thank the subcommittee for its continued 
bipartisan support of our office, which has advanced our 
ability to promote accountability and deter future misconduct. 
The support has enabled us to better manage the growing volume 
of critical digital forensic evidence we need for our work, 
take steps to modernize and secure our IT infrastructure, build 
a data analytics capability to advance our audit and 
investigative efforts, and timely respond to the increase in 
whistleblower complaints that we received.
    The complexity and volume of our work, however, continues 
to grow, as do demands on our cyber forensic capabilities, our 
IT infrastructure and security, and our ability to conduct 
classified audits, reviews, and investigations. We look forward 
to continuing to work with each of you to address these issues.
    I appreciate, again, the opportunity to testify today, and 
I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may 
have.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you for your testimony, Inspector 
General.
    And we now move to the question period. I will recognize 
myself for the first 5 minutes of questions.
    In 2013, your office completed an exhaustive review of the 
Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division that built on 
previous reviews by your predecessor. Your analysis spotlighted 
management, policy, and personnel issues that hindered DOJ from 
carrying out its historically prominent mission in protecting 
all citizens' voting rights.
    Now, we are not going to go into that report in detail 
right now, but I have to observe, there couldn't be a more 
critical time than right now for a strong, active Justice 
Department effort in this area.
    The 2013 Supreme Court's Shelby County decision helped open 
the floodgates to an increasing number of administrative and 
legislative actions in States and localities nationwide, often 
under the guise of addressing nonexistent voter fraud, so-
called fraud, to make it harder for citizens to register and 
cast their votes.
    While, of course, it may be a good idea to update the 
Voting Rights Act, in the near term we do depend on the Justice 
Department to take a lead in forceful action to combat 
suppression and protect efforts to facilitate the exercise of 
this basic right of democracy, the right to vote.
    I am going to ask you three questions, and I am going to 
get them all out so I don't have to interrupt you in our 5 
minutes, the first session.
    Number one, how would you assess the performance of the 
Department in general and the Voting Rights Section in 
particular in carrying out its responsibilities to protect 
voting rights in the past two election cycles?
    Number two, in its fiscal year 2021 budget and performance 
summary, the Civil Rights Division highlighted many missions 
but only a one-word reference to voting, protecting the rights 
of military servicemembers. What performance measures--
investigation, prosecutions, settlements--are available to help 
evaluate the division's performance in this critical area? What 
statistics would you point to? And if more data is needed, what 
metrics would you recommend the Department collect?
    And, number three, do you think the Civil Rights Division 
has the capacity to be proactive in countering potential voter 
suppression actions, either through litigation or other means? 
And, if not, what steps could be taken within current law to 
increase their effectiveness in such efforts?
    Take it away, Inspector General.
    Mr. Horowitz. Great. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So all 
very important questions. And agree with you, this is a 
fundamental issue with our democracy, is the right to vote.
    Let me take the last one first and then double back to the 
others.
    I do think the Department has a series of tools available 
to it in the Voting Section to be proactive. I think that is 
one of the things we look at regularly when we do our reviews, 
is understanding how the Department is using its authorities 
and whether it is simply sitting back, waiting for problems to 
come to it, or, as I think management of any department program 
requires, thinking about where the law and needs are going, 
where issues are developing, and taking steps to address that.
    Clearly, the Department needs to operate within the bounds 
of the law--statutory law, Supreme Court interpretation of it. 
I am going to avoid giving them legal advice, because that is 
clearly not something that Inspectors General are there to do, 
to give the legal advice. But I do think there is the ability 
to look at these issues proactively and it is important to do 
that.
    With regard to the fiscal year 2021 report that you 
reference, I certainly think voting is such a fundamental issue 
that it requires careful consideration, analysis, and more 
than, I would suggest, a word in a report. This has been a 
challenge we have seen, actually, also across the board, in 
terms of performance measures and metrics. The Department 
generally does not do a good job in that space.
    And we could talk about it in a variety of different 
contexts here. I think one of the things that the Department 
tends to do--and, having been a prosecutor, I saw this in U.S. 
attorneys' offices--is talk about output. ``Well, we indicted X 
number of cases this year, 5 percent more than last year; 
therefore, we must be doing a better job.''
    That is not the measure. The measure is, are you addressing 
the need and the issues and having an impact in those spaces, 
not just, you know, putting more people in jail, arresting more 
people. That can be one measure but certainly not the sole 
measure.
    And I think, in the voting space, it is important for the 
Department, when it puts together its strategic plan, to think 
about what they should be looking at beyond simply outputs. How 
many cases did we bring, that shouldn't be the measure. The 
measure should be, how do we impact the ability of the public 
and citizens to exercise their right to vote.
    And I think, frankly, they are best positioned to think 
through those issues. We are very well-positioned to look at 
whether they have done an effective job of that. And I am happy 
to--we have already engaged with them on this issue, and happy 
to engage further with you on and your staff on.
    And then, finally, how to assess how they have carried out 
their responsibilities in the last two election cycles. First 
of all, they have responded to our earlier recommendations from 
the report you referenced and made those changes. I can report 
that we have not seen the kind of complaints that led us to 
undertake that earlier review, which were quite concerning, 
about the various abuses and issues that were rising within the 
section. So I think, from that standpoint, there is an ability 
to have some comfort.
    But I think the challenge--and we have talked to the 
division about this--is, in light of Shelby County and 
understanding where district courts and other courts were going 
in terms of implementing that decision and what space was still 
available, I think, from what we heard from the Department, it 
took some time to understand that.
    So I am not sure, frankly, as I sit here, where we are in 
this past cycle. We would have to go back and look at them, 
given how recent it is. And, in terms of 2016, it was so soon 
after Shelby that I am not sure--and will be happy to follow up 
with the Voting Rights Section--as to whether they had had 
sufficient time to react to the Shelby County decision to 
undertake whatever changes they needed to take in advance of 
the 2016 election.
    But I will follow up with the division. We have not done 
oversight work in that space, and I can certainly follow up and 
get back to you, Mr. Chairman, on that issue to try and look at 
and see what they did in 2016 and what they did in 2020 as well 
as in the intervening 2018 congressional election.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Inspector General. That is 
hugely important, and let us continue to follow up on that.
    At this time, I would like to recognize Ranking Member 
Aderholt for his questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, thank you.
    Again, good morning, General Horowitz. Good to be with you 
today. I want to ask a little bit about the border crisis, 
focus a little bit on that.
    The Trump administration, as you know, took real specific 
steps to try to end the pull factors that incentivize illegal 
immigration into the United States. For example, President 
Trump implemented the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, pursuant to 
statutory authority, to send a message to foreign nationals 
that, simply, that because they make it to the United States 
and claim asylum, they will not be released into the United 
States while awaiting their immigration court proceedings.
    My first question would be to you is, do you think the 
termination of this particular policy has revived the prior 
pull factor that we had?
    Mr. Horowitz. So, Congressman, given our oversight 
responsibilities at DOJ on the immigration are focused on 
Executive Office of Immigration Review--because DHS has primary 
responsibility for charging decisions and border control--I am 
not, frankly, in a position to speak about how the ``Remain in 
Mexico'' policy either impacted stops at the border previously 
or if the removal of it is doing that now, frankly.
    I can certainly follow up with our counterparts at DHS OIG 
to see what they are seeing. And I have certainly seen their 
earlier reports as we were doing some of ours on EOIR's 
handling of this. But, at this point, given where CBP exists, 
which is at DHS and not at DOJ, I am going to be limited in how 
much insight I have personally into that issue.
    Mr. Aderholt. Did you see anything from the reports that 
you could share with us?
    Mr. Horowitz. I don't know currently how this is playing 
out. I have seen reports that DHS OIG previously has put 
forward identifying areas where those programs could be 
improved and, you know, addressed further on the border. But I 
would really have to defer to them on what they have found and 
analyzed, because these are not oversight efforts we have 
undertaken at the border.
    We have looked at some issues about cooperation and work 
between FBI and DHS at the border on the law enforcement side, 
because that is also a DOJ responsibility, but not specifically 
on the DHS border control authorities.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, during the Trump administration, you 
assessed that there was a lack of coordination between Federal 
agencies with respect to immigration policies and procedure. 
And we are now seeing significant policy reversals, such as 
ending the ``Remain in Mexico,'' as I mentioned, and a 
moratorium on removals. And there appears to be a domino effect 
on migration, crime, and a struggle to obtain adequate 
resources.
    Has the Department of Homeland Security--and maybe you can 
shed some light on this--has the Department of Homeland 
Security coordinated with critical Department of Justice 
agencies, such as the United States Marshals Service, the U.S. 
attorneys, and our immigration courts, with regard to policy 
changes?
    Mr. Horowitz. That has been an area we have looked at and 
have expressed some concerns recently, specifically in a report 
we did about coordination between FBI and DHS counterparts on 
border-related security and criminal issues.
    And we recommended, for example, there that FBI and DHS, 
HSI in particular, enter into agreements and understandings so 
that they could better deconflict, better coordinate. And, 
interestingly, FBI agreed with our recommendation, as did the 
Department, but HSI did not. And so that recommendation 
actually remains open.
    I know the prior Deputy Attorney General actually raised 
this issue and this concern about the unwillingness to enter 
into such an arrangement with DHS counterparts, and that is 
still a problem today. And it is a problem I have heard about 
repeatedly, which is the potential conflicts between DOJ 
components and DHS components. And it is an area where we need 
to keep oversight of and leadership of both agencies and to 
follow up.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
    I see my time is almost up, so I will wait until the next 
round to go for the next question.
    Mr. Cartwright. I thank my colleague Mr. Aderholt.
    And the chair recognizes Congressman Crist for 5 minutes.
    And, Congressman Crist, you are muted.
    Mr. Trone. Matt, are you calling on me?
    Mr. Cartwright. The chair has recognized Congressman Crist 
of Florida.
    And, Congressman Crist, you are muted.
    All right. At this time, we are going to skip over and 
recognize Congressman Trone for 5 minutes of questions.
    Go ahead, Congressman.
    Mr. Trone. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you today, Inspector General Horowitz, for 
joining us, and thank you for the important role that you play 
at the Department in auditing programs and activities.
    On mental healthcare, last year, I visited a State prison 
in my district that houses over 1,300 inmates. At the facility, 
the warden told us they had a budget for two mental health 
professionals but only one was currently on the job; they 
couldn't find another. This facility was not part of BOP, but 
it painted a picture of mental health treatment access, you 
know, at our Nation's prisons.
    As you may recall, in January 2020, the Department and OPM 
granted the BOP authority to pay its physicians and dentists 
according to the Title 38 pay plan, which governs compensations 
for medical professionals at the VA. The result was higher pay 
than the BOP would otherwise have been able to offer.
    Your 2020 report on top management challenges for the 
Department makes it clear that, despite the increase in 
staffing that using the Title 38 pay led to, BOP healthcare 
staffing is still far below where it needs to be, especially 
due to COVID.
    Could you elaborate on what additional actions BOP should 
take to improve healthcare staffing levels, particularly mental 
healthcare professionals?
    Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Congressman. That is a very 
important question and issue that we have focused on and have 
issued reports on, in our top management challenges and prior 
reports, identifying the mental health issue as a significant 
problem for treatment not only of inmates while in prison, but 
the public needs to understand that it is critical to helping 
inmates who will get out of jail in the Federal system--very 
few inmates are in there for life--to transition to the 
community. These inmates will be getting out of prison, and so 
we all have an interest in making sure they are treated as they 
need to be treated.
    And there is this perpetual staffing challenge for the BOP 
on the mental health side. I think, first and foremost, what we 
identified was a commitment--in terms of a need--is a 
commitment to focusing on this issue and doing everything 
possible to address the staffing shortages.
    They are oftentimes institution-specific problems. Some 
institutions have greater challenges than others. And so there 
isn't a one-size-fits-all in a Federal prison system that is 
120-plus prisons all over the United States, some in rural 
locations, some in urban locations. And I think, first and 
foremost, that that is what has to occur, is a dedicated focus 
to that issue in terms of staffing.
    We have also identified issues with regard to placing 
inmates in particular isolated housing units that tends to 
exacerbate mental health issues as another problem and concern 
that the BOP has to address. Because it is both a treatment 
problem and a staffing problem, and both of those issues need 
to be addressed.
    I am sorry, you are muted, Congressman.
    Mr. Trone. To help get them this focus, which we all agree 
is needed, and the sense of urgency. Because the recidivism 
rate, at 75 percent 5 years out, is costing taxpayers, you 
know, $80 billion a year. You know, what should we on the 
Appropriations Committee in fiscal year 2022 do to get them the 
resources to help with mental health in the incarcerated 
individuals?
    Mr. Horowitz. I think a couple things.
    First, a recent GAO report highlighted the overall weakness 
in the BOP's assessment of its staffing needs. That applies 
across the board. I think what the BOP needs to do is come 
before the committee, the Department, and assess aggressively 
and effectively its staffing needs in each of these areas, 
mental health being a very specific one that it can do, and 
needs to come forward and say, ``this is our staffing 
expectations, we need to hit this target and, at a minimum, 
reach the 90 percent threshold,'' which is generally their 
standard, and figure out how to get actions taken to both 
identify potential applicants and get them on board in a timely 
manner through the challenges of the Federal hiring system 
generally.
    I am sorry, you are on mute, Congressman.
    Congressman, sorry, you are on mute.
    Sorry, Congressman, you are on mute. I didn't hear the last 
question.
    Mr. Trone. Yeah, it jumped on mute there. I have a slew of 
questions. We will have to wait until we come back again, 
because our time is expired right now.
    But call on me when we are ready to go again, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
    And, at this time, the chair recognizes Congressman Ben 
Cline for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, Inspector General Horowitz. It is good to see you.
    I appreciate the chairman and Ranking Member Aderholt for 
holding today's hearing. Ensuring that our justice system is 
operating effectively and efficiently in accordance with the 
law is essential. And it is so important that we maintain 
transparency and accountability in government. And I applaud 
the IG for his office's efforts to conduct aggressive and 
thorough oversight.
    You know, when you are talking about addressing COVID, 
responding to COVID, one of the areas that has been of concern 
to me is, the lockdowns that have been put in place by my 
Governor, several other Governors, have led to spikes in drug 
abuse--opioid addiction was already a problem in my district--
but suicide rates, domestic violence rates, a number of 
unrelated issues that have seen an increase in rates since 
COVID.
    And, with regard to opioids, the Northwest Virginia 
Regional Drug and Gang Task Force reported just this week there 
have been at least 12 deaths and 41 nonfatal overdoses this 
year in the region. Three of those fatal overdoses and 13 
nonfatal overdoses have occurred since March 16. And the 
increase is likely due to a combination of receiving Federal 
stimulus money and the presence of fentanyl-laced heroin.
    What is the Department of Justice doing to better 
coordinate with local law enforcement to combat this deeply 
concerning increase in overdoses ravaging our communities?
    Mr. Horowitz. So what we saw in our opioids report that we 
issued 2 years ago now was the Department, through the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, undertaking an effort, really for 
the first time in a significant way, to try and look at not 
just the law enforcement issues but to look at it through its 
regulatory landscape and partner with State and local officials 
at the law enforcement level and at the healthcare level. And 
so we saw they were doing a better job of that, but they were 
in a pilot program at that point and needed to expand that 
effort.
    That was one of the main issues we saw, was the shift, 
again, from law enforcement to regulatory. But one of the 
concerns we had with the Department's ability to respond was 
weaknesses in its data information and ability to assess that 
data. And so what we looked at, over the years, you could quite 
clearly see, as the ever-increasing production thresholds were 
growing--which DEA is the one who allows to grow--you could see 
that spike coming, if you looked at and carefully assessed 
where numbers were going, not just deaths but demands for 
increased production.
    And what we said in that report is, the Department and DEA 
needs to look for trends like you are saying, like you are 
referencing, and try and get ahead of them, back to the earlier 
discussion I had with the chairman about being proactive, using 
the data to be proactive, partnering in a proactive way with 
local partners. Because the folks from your county and your 
community are going to see this problem first. They are the 
ones you want to hear from. And I think there needs to be a lot 
more of that going on. And that is what our report said.
    Mr. Cline. Great.
    In your testimony, you discussed the $850 million in grant 
funding DOJ received as part of the CARES Act. How is the DOJ 
and your office monitoring the disbursement of these grant 
funds to ensure that taxpayer resources are being administered 
and used for their intended purpose?
    Mr. Horowitz. So we have already done two, what I would 
say, quick-hit looks at that so that we could identify whether 
it was being managed effectively in the initial stages. And we 
found generally it was by the Department's Office of Justice 
Programs.
    The critical question is going to be, as we now look at it 
down the road, where the money went to. Were the recipients and 
the sub-recipients using it appropriately? And, frankly, in our 
past grant work, that is usually where we found the challenges 
for the Department, not so much on how the Department is 
assessing grants and giving them out, but how the Department 
was assessing whether the downstream recipients were using them 
appropriately--the grantees, the sub-grantees. And that is 
where our work is going to lead us to now, now that the money 
has been out.
    So the initial report back is, the Department seems to have 
managed it effectively from its end in terms of getting it out, 
but we need to figure out if the money went to the right 
people, places, and it had the right impact.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. My time has expired.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    And, at this point, the chair recognizes Congressman Mike 
Garcia for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Inspector General, for taking the time with 
us today. I have several questions, but perhaps we will save 
some of them for the next round.
    The issue that you addressed at the beginning about 
strengthening public confidence in our agencies at really all 
levels of law enforcement but, obviously, in this domain with 
what you have purview over, from an accountability--I think 
that goes both ways, not only in terms of law enforcement 
conduct and not abusing their power, not abusing suspects 
during the custodial phases, but also making sure that we are 
holding folks who are committing crimes accountable.
    There is a perception that I hear very frequently, not only 
in my district here in southern California but also, you know, 
throughout the West Coast and in D.C., that folks are, frankly, 
flabbergasted that we can have major cities in our country be 
overcome by rioters for extended periods of time without really 
seeing, in their opinion and the perception is, enough law 
enforcement coming in to actually stop this type of civil 
unrest--riots, looting, and arson.
    We see examples in Portland, where it has been now 9 
months, 3 weeks, and 3 days of not just peaceful protest but 
also looting and vandalism to small businesses over an extended 
period of time. We see in cities like Seattle, where we have, 
you know, six city blocks' worth of territory being overtaken 
by rioters and creating these autonomous zones.
    There seems to be an unanswered question as to how that can 
happen for such a long period of time without seeing either the 
Federal Government get involved to the point where we are 
squashing this type of behavior, still allowing for peaceful 
protests but not allowing the vandalism and the tens of 
millions of dollars that we have incurred as a result of the 
civil unrest--the riots, the looting, and the arson.
    In your opinion, are we doing enough at the Federal 
Government level within the DOJ and all the equities below that 
to ensure that we are earning the trust of our constituents and 
the public in terms of just law enforcement in these regards?
    Mr. Horowitz. Well, thank you, Congressman. And that is an 
issue that we are looking at, both in connection with the 
events last summer as well as the events at the Capitol, the 
insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, is trying to 
understand those events from the DOJ perspective.
    And, by the way, we are coordinating with our counterparts 
at the Interior OIG, which has authority over the Park Police; 
DHS OIG, which obviously has authority over Secret Service and 
other law enforcement; and the Department of Defense IG, which 
has, obviously, the National Guard. So we are looking at it 
from the DOJ perspective and coordinating with our counterparts 
across the IG community.
    Having said that, obviously, first and foremost, the 
responsibility is at the local level, and the Federal 
Government needs to be there to support and work 
collaboratively with local law enforcement, and not come in 
and, as a general matter, unless you are protecting a Federal 
courthouse or the Congress or other locations like that, to 
usurp local law enforcement.
    You know, our questions that have been raised--I will speak 
to DOJ specifically--with regard to some of the events last 
year, which is, how well-prepared are DOJ law enforcement 
personnel to serve in what are traditionally local law 
enforcement responsibilities, in dealing with civil unrest, 
issues at the Capitol, things like that? And that is also one 
of the issues we are looking at. It is not clear to us what 
kind of training, for example, BOP officers got before they 
were put in place, FBI officers were put in place. And so that 
is another question we are looking at.
    Mr. Garcia. And is there an opportunity or benefit to look 
at potential venues to help shape decisionmaking, at least, or 
inform decisionmaking at the lower city levels, county levels, 
in the interest of preventing these, what start as smaller 
protests and smaller episodes of looting and rioting, from 
becoming longer-extended periods?
    I mean, yes, it is a local issue, but over time these start 
influencing other cities throughout our Nation, and it becomes 
a Federal problem really quick, right?
    Mr. Horowitz. Yeah. And this is where the joint task forces 
are so critical, at the local level. And that is something we 
have been looking at from the standpoint of FBI, which have 
task forces and obviously runs the Joint Terrorism Task Forces 
across the country, working with DHS. The DEA has many task 
forces, as does ATF, for the, respectively, drugs and gun 
issues and violent crime issues.
    And one of the things I will just mention we are looking at 
is, we have an audit that will be out soon on body-worn 
cameras. And I mention that, even though it isn't, perhaps, 
obvious to people what is the connection between body-worn 
cameras and the relationship of Federal law enforcement to 
local law enforcement, there is a direct line there. Because, 
as we all know, most large cities, most large police forces use 
body-worn cameras; Federal law enforcement does not. That has 
led to local law enforcement questioning participation in task 
forces. Because, in some instances, it is local law, actually, 
that requires the body-worn cameras.
    And so it is very important for the Federal law enforcement 
community to address that issue and to make sure it is working 
closely with their counterparts to deal with some of the 
challenges, like body-worn cameras, that can come up that you 
might not think about in the first instance, but when you see 
this over and over again over the last several years, it is 
really quite critical to address, and something that I think 
this committee and other committees will need to think about.
    Because one of the things we are hearing about, as we are 
talking about this issue at the Department, is the resource 
issue and the cost issue, which----
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
    Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. As you know, you have funded at 
the State and local level through the Department's Office of 
Justice Programs. They have given out over $100 million to 
support that. But it isn't happening at the Federal level.
    Mr. Garcia. Understood.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    At this point, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Brenda 
Lawrence for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Last week, our subcommittee heard from the Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons. And one of the things that I am 
zeroing in on is the treatment of women, particularly the 
Federal inmates, when it comes to receiving proper care and 
access to feminine hygiene products.
    In your testimony, you highlighted several remote 
inspections that evaluated the BOP's effort to control COVID. 
Mr. Horowitz, based on the review of these reports, can you 
speak to any specific findings associated with access to female 
hygiene products for inmates, and did you see any trends across 
the country?
    Because when we asked this question of the Director, he 
said he would have to look into it and get back to us.
    Mr. Horowitz. So, Congresswoman, that is a very important 
issue. We actually did a report shortly before the pandemic 
that specifically addressed some of the female healthcare 
issues in prison--female inmate issues generally, but that 
specific issue as well. And, as a result of that review, the 
BOP implemented a new policy with regard to feminine hygiene 
products which was consistent with the recommendations and our 
views that we saw.
    I can promptly get back to you on the current status of 
that. We did not, I will just mention, as part of the pandemic, 
follow up specifically on that issue when we were doing our 
remote inspections, because we already had the open 
recommendation on----
    Mrs. Lawrence. Okay.
    Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. The issue.
    But I can certainly get back to you. That is a very 
important issue and something we have been on top of and want 
to see implemented effectively.
    Mrs. Lawrence. So I want you to know that, in visiting some 
of the prisons and jails across the country, the issue of the 
budget, where they said the women in prison get the same budget 
as the men, but men do not need medications to help navigate 
through menopause, they don't have the female hygiene products. 
So that is a different line item.
    And so that is one of the things I am concerned about. And 
because they say that we are treating them equal, women 
inherently have different needs that would be a different line 
item. So that is what I am looking for. And I want to see those 
recommendations.
    But before I close, I want to commend the Office of the 
Inspector General for undertaking investigations into a few 
pressing issues. Taking steps to understand how to strengthen 
public confidence in law enforcement is incredibly important.
    And the last question I have: We started a program in the 
State of Michigan where nonviolent, like, blue-collar inmates 
who wanted to learn a skilled trade or to be given some tools 
to make them a productive citizen when they leave. And we 
actually start training them once they reach that term where 
they are close to probation, and then they are getting job 
offers before they leave prison.
    And we know that skilled workforce is a really big issue. 
Can you share with me what your opinion is of that? And can we 
do that at our Federal prisons?
    Mr. Horowitz. We certainly can do that. And one of the 
things that we have done as we have looked at these issues is 
look and see what the States are doing. Because what we have 
found in many areas is that the Federal prisons can learn a lot 
from what State systems are doing, and sometimes--and many 
times, frankly, those systems have been further along in some 
of these areas.
    And two things come to mind on the Federal side that we 
have worked on and looked at:
    Federal Prison Industries, that is a very important program 
to help give skill sets to inmates to transition out. I go back 
to what I said earlier. Inmates in the Federal system are 
invariably going to be getting out of jail. These are not 
inmates who are in for life sentences.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Exactly.
    Mr. Horowitz. These are inmates who are going to be back in 
our communities. We want them to be skilled. We want them to 
have mental health treatment. We want them to have good 
healthcare. We want to make sure they can move into a 
productive life----
    Mrs. Lawrence. Yeah.
    Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. Right? Because then they don't 
go back to prison, they don't engage in violent crimes. It is 
very important.
    So Federal Prison Industries, we have identified a series 
of challenges that they have faced. And we have recommendations 
out there, and we will be happy to get them to you and your 
staff, on how that can be improved. There are many ways to do 
that, to give the vocational skills necessary to our inmates.
    And then, on our Release Preparation Program review, what 
is the Federal prison system, the BOP, doing to get inmates 
ready for that transition?
    Mrs. Lawrence. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Horowitz. We have also looked at, by the way, halfway 
houses, and we have identified concerns there. It is not clear 
to us whether the BOP, with the hundreds of millions of dollars 
this committee is investing in halfway houses, whether you are 
getting the value for that that we think we should be getting.
    There really hasn't been a hard look at that. And so there 
is a real question of whether transitioning inmates to halfway 
houses helps or hurts, as opposed to inmates who have homes to 
go to and communities to go to, transitioning them there 
through various release preparation programs. So, happy to 
engage further with you on that.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you. And I want you to know that I 
would be willing to work with you to remove any barriers.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mrs. Lawrence. And thank you for 
raising that important question about the efficacy of halfway-
house efforts and the advisability of spending that money.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Grace Meng 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Inspector, for being here today.
    I wanted to echo the comments and questions and concerns of 
my colleague Representative Brenda Lawrence about ensuring that 
inmates have sufficient menstrual hygiene products in our 
facilities. As you know, Congress passed legislation where 
inmates are supposed to receive these products, be able to 
receive and access them free of charge. And so, you know, just 
wanted to echo her concerns as well.
    I wanted to ask about this last year or so where we have 
seen increased instances of hateful attacks and crimes against 
Asian Americans throughout the country. The Asian-American 
community has really been screaming for help for more than a 
year. And we are very thankful for President Biden's executive 
memorandum which addresses, finally addresses, this issue.
    I also want to thank so many of my colleagues, including 
the leadership of the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, and so 
many others, who have expressed solidarity and stood up in 
support of the Asian-American community in this country in 
Congress in the past year.
    And, while I am glad to see the Department of Justice 
stepping up to work on combating discrimination, you know, if 
you could tell me, I am curious--two questions.
    One, what actions, if any, did the Department of Justice 
take last year, in 2020, to address the discrimination and 
violence against the Asian-American community?
    And, two, has the Department faced any challenges in 
addressing this anti-Asian violence? If so, what are they? What 
can Congress do to help?
    Thank you.
    Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Those are obviously very critical issues. And I will, first 
of all, follow up on what occurred, you know, last year. I 
don't have any data right now in front of me, but that is a 
very important question, something I am happy to touch on.
    The Department does and can address these issues in 
multiple ways. Obviously, the tragedy in Atlanta, the tragedy 
this week in Boulder demonstrates some of the issues here.
    And it is not necessarily just from a law enforcement 
standpoint. The Department's Office of Justice Programs has 
grant-making authority and issues grants to deal with 
discrimination and hate crimes and these issues. And so it can 
look to be more effective and focused in where it is looking to 
address serious issues like this.
    The Civil Rights Division, obviously, is involved in not 
only prosecuting hate crime issues but in providing 
educationand support to local communities on those issues.
    And one of the things we have looked at in the past when 
issues about gun violence have come up--and I have had 
discussions at prior hearings with this committee on a 
bipartisan basis about, how can the NICS program, the 
background check system, be improved? How can ATF, from a 
regulatory standpoint, be more effective in its work? And those 
are issues we have written about and identified as challenges 
for the Department.
    And so I think all of those things are areas where the 
Department of Justice, at the Federal level, can work with 
local communities to try and address these problems.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you.
    And then, you know, I am just also curious, I know that--so 
many of us are pushing two pieces of legislation. One would 
also have a component where counseling is recommended or 
required as part of sentencing, as well, for people who may be 
convicted of hate crimes.
    What do you think about that? And, you know, just curious 
about your thoughts on that.
    Mr. Horowitz. Sure. Absolutely. You know, I was on the 
Sentencing Commission, as the chairman mentioned, in the 2003 
to 2009 period. And, obviously, given our oversight 
responsibilities of BOP, we look at these issues.
    I think it is very important that there be strong programs 
in place. It is an area that we have written about and had 
concerns about, frankly, over the years, is the strength of the 
BOP programming in particular areas. When we have looked at 
these, what we have seen is strong programs at some 
institutions and, frankly, paper programs at others, where they 
were going through the motions.
    And I think it is very important, again, with 120-plus 
institutions around the country, that the BOP work to 
institutionalize these programs so that there be one, 
effectively, all across the country. Because, as we know, as 
all of us know from the BOP, inmates are spread throughout the 
country, and there isn't one institution that, for example, 
deals with only inmates who are convicted of hate crimes; they 
could be at many institutions.
    So it is a very important question, something I am, again, 
happy to speak with you further about, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Congresswoman Meng, a lady that 
we already knew was a fabulous multitasker, and now she has 
upped her game.
    We move to a second round of questions. At the outset, I am 
recognize myself for 5 more minutes of questions.
    We have been talking about the Bureau of Prisons, Inspector 
General. And your office has monitored the Department's use of 
a billion dollars in CARES Act funding. It has also carried out 
many so-called ``remote inspections,'' unquote, of diverse BOP 
institutions.
    Your reviews, while not exhaustive, have shown variation in 
BOP preparedness and response and opportunities missed that 
might have reduced rates of transmission, illness, and possibly 
saved lives.
    Now, while I know your office is working on what you call a 
capstone analysis of lessons learned from BOP's pandemic 
response, what preliminary observations can you offer now about 
overall readiness before the pandemic struck in facilities and 
equipment, protocols and training? What have they fixed, and 
what should they make a priority going forward?
    Mr. Horowitz. Uh-huh. So, several issues that I think 
remain to be addressed and I have raised with Department 
leadership.
    First of all, testing. What we found was BOP was ill-
equipped to deal with what it needed from a testing regime. And 
so what we saw in multiple institutions was BOP taking the 
steps it needed once an inmate became symptomatic but not being 
able to test other inmates to see if they were asymptomatic. 
And what they learned as they started to get more testing 
available is that the spread resulted from asymptomatic inmates 
being left behind because they couldn't test. Even with the 
vaccine, testing needs to continue, and they need to have that 
testing capability, first.
    Second, certainly many BOP institutions are going to be 
challenged by their limited space to quarantine. And they need 
to in advance think about that and be in a position to have 
inmates located in institutions where they have greater room--
which they do in some--to quarantine and think about managing 
inmate populations at facilities that have greater problems 
with quarantining.
    Third, staffing. Staffing shortages exacerbated the 
problems that the BOP had. From a correctional officer 
standpoint, we saw institutions where officers were being asked 
to do 18-hour-plus days, because they had to get people to the 
hospital, inmates to the hospital, which requires correctional 
officers to take them there, and then had to keep people 
behind, obviously, to fill those positions.
    Medical issues, same thing, staffing. We heard over and 
over again from healthcare professionals about how the 
shortages significantly impacted and strained their ability to 
respond to the COVID pandemic. Those have to be addressed.
    And then----
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay. How about home confinement and 
compassionate release?
    Mr. Horowitz. Yeah. Yeah.
    Mr. Cartwright. Your report suggests those may have been 
underused tools. Is that a fair statement? And, if so, what 
could BOP do better to leverage those tools?
    Mr. Horowitz. Exactly the next one I was going to mention, 
which was, they were not prepared to deal with on a granular 
level the compassionate release issue. We have written about 
this for many years, that the BOP has not effectively used that 
authority. We identified that again in these reviews.
    What it needs to do is have a commitment from top-down, to 
the warden level and at the highest levels of the BOP, to 
prepare in advance and look in advance at its inmate roster and 
assess inmates who are capable of moving to home confinement.
    And this is where halfway houses come in also. The current 
structure provides, generally speaking, that inmates go to 
halfway houses first. That, to my mind, is a problem in a 
pandemic. There is not necessarily a value in going from an 
institution to a halfway house if you could go to a home, 
precisely because you want to be quarantined or socially 
distanced.
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay.
    Last question, which is a big question. BOP received $100 
million in CARES Act funding, supplemented by $300 million more 
in the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bill. Can you share any 
preliminary observations about how well those funds have been 
used?
    Mr. Horowitz. So we have seen evidence of their push to 
address some of the staffing issues. I can't give you a 
granular level at this point, but we can follow up on that and 
see how that money has been used. And we certainly will with 
regard to the COVID-related funding, as we continue to follow 
up on that.
    But that, I would say, is one of their highest-priority 
needs from the work we have done, is filling those staffing 
gaps on the correctional officer side, the mental health side, 
the healthcare side generally.
    It is an issue that not only goes to the security of the 
institution, but it goes overall to the well-being of 
correctional officers and inmates. It is a cross-cutting issue, 
you know, on all fronts.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for saying that. You know that is 
a big concern of mine, the staffing shortfalls, and we will 
continue to focus on that.
    And, at this time, I would like to recognize Ranking Member 
Aderholt for 5 more minutes of questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear 
me?
    Mr. Cartwright. Yes.
    Mr. Aderholt. And my clock is not appearing. I am having a 
little bit of technical difficulty, so you might just speak up, 
Mr. Chairman, when my time has elapsed.
    In response, Mr. Horowitz, to the persistent management 
challenge, your office has stated that, quote, ``despite the 
critical nature of utilizing performance data, many department 
components lack either meaningful performance measures or data 
necessary to evaluate their programs,'' end of quote.
    In 2018, in response to recommendations from your office 
and the GAO, the Executive Office of Immigration Review 
implemented new case completion metrics. And that was an effort 
to ensure that immigration courts were operating efficiently 
and also operating appropriately.
    President Biden has pledged to roll back the immigration 
judge performance metrics that have helped lead to a record 
number of immigration cases being completed. Given the 
immigration caseload and its growth of nearly 60 percent in 
less than 2 years, to what extent does eliminating the case 
completion metrics concern you?
    Mr. Horowitz. So, you know, I continue to think it is very 
important to have metrics available to assess effectiveness. 
You know, I am not in a position at this point to assess how 
that may or may not affect the case movement. We are not, 
obviously, looking at that right now. But I do think--and I 
agree with you completely--it is very important to have those 
kind of metrics in place and, if these are going to be changed, 
that there be other metrics that are appropriate to make an 
assessment.
    There needs to be an ability to move these cases forward. 
We have identified this as a problem specifically with regard 
to the Executive Office of Immigration Review, as you know from 
our reports about their problems years earlier. And so this is 
something that I am certainly happy to have us continue to 
follow up on to see what is happening with those metrics and 
what it means for case management.
    Mr. Aderholt. Do you have any reason to believe that the 
performance metrics impeded due process?
    Mr. Horowitz. I don't know whether they did or did not, as 
I sit here today. We are doing a review on the video-
teleconferencing capabilities and how the Department and EOIR 
was handling those and its overall docket. And so I will have 
greater insight into that in the coming months, as to how that 
program has worked.
    I will say, during the pandemic, what we saw was, the 
weaknesses in EOIR's video capabilities early on and its 
technological limitations adversely affected their ability to 
continue to move forward. So they do need to continue to move 
forward on their IT infrastructure and architecture.
    Mr. Aderholt. You mentioned about the importance, that you 
felt like it was important that we do have the metrics there. 
How can case completion benchmarks improve efficiency of the 
docket? And how can the Justice Department utilize such 
benchmarks without being accused of imposing quotas on their 
immigration judges?
    Mr. Horowitz. So, you know, I will give a parallel to what 
we do. We have time-completion standards for our agents and 
general goals, but we are also sensitive to the notion that we 
don't want cases pursued overly aggressively to try and meet a 
deadline that in some cases shouldn't be applied or close cases 
simply because someone can't meet them where there could be 
some wrongdoing.
    It is similar on the judicial front. You want to have some 
metrics in place, some timelines in place for how to manage 
cases, but you also want to build in flexibility for what are 
inevitably going to be more complex matters, more challenging 
matters, so that you are not doing a one-size-fits-all with 
every single case. And I think that is very important to build 
into these metrics.
    And then being able to do what we do, frankly. The first 
line of accountability is at the management level. EOIR and the 
Department need to look at what is going on and say, these are 
working well or not going well. And then we are there as, I 
will say, a second line of defense to go and see if that 
oversight is being done effectively and, if not, to report out 
our recommendations for how to improve it.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, notwithstanding the pandemic that we 
have gone through over the last year, what do you see as the 
most significant factors that are driving this burgeoning 
caseload at the Executive Office of Immigration Review?
    Would it be too few immigration judges? Is it the 
difficulty in the hiring process? Is it poor case management--I 
mean, completion performance? Is it continuances? Lack of 
courtroom space? What are your thoughts on that?
    Mr. Horowitz. Yep. So we have heard those issues across the 
board, in terms of challenges and issues. Clearly, as the 
caseload increases, there is a certain point at which you can't 
simply expect judges to handle more and more cases. They are 
going to hit a maximum threshold. And so resources clearly 
become an issue as the caseload continues to burgeon.
    We have heard about concerns about space and available 
space. We have seen challenges with paper filings and paper 
dockets and what that means in today's world. Paper dockets, 
frankly, don't make much sense except as a backup, not as a 
primary tool. And so moving electronically your operations 
would increase efficiencies.
    So, in some respects, I think it may well be an all-of-the-
above, but I think in the next few months I will have a better 
sense for you of perhaps which ones are more significant than 
others.
    Mr. Cartwright. And, Ranking Member Aderholt, that is 5 
minutes, if you are not keeping track, if you can't see that.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. So thank you for those questions.
    And, at this point, the chair recognizes Congressman Dutch 
Ruppersberger for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    First thing, I want to ask you about the SolarWinds attacks 
as it relates to the Department of Justice and actions to 
address this problem moving forward.
    Now, the SolarWinds cyber attack showed our cybersecurity 
vulnerabilities, from major corporations to a large number of 
Federal departments and agencies. The Department of Justice 
also had the unfortunate honor of having a secondary attack 
against DOJ systems that allowed the attackers to access 3 
percent, or 3,500, of the Department's emails.
    SolarWinds is alarming, because this shows how vulnerable 
our systems are, but this attack also shows us that, with a few 
tweaks from the attackers, an intelligence-gathering mission 
could easily move toward malicious destruction.
    Now, my questions: Number one, can you update us on DOJ's 
response and what steps the Department is taking to mitigate 
this, moving forward? And how have you worked with CISA and NSA 
to help formulate what DOJ has done right and what they have 
done wrong?
    And then, also, can you give us an update on what your 
interactions and discussions with other department Inspectors 
General have produced? Have you come up with best practices or 
found common entry points to Federal IT networks?
    Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Congressman. Obviously, the 
SolarWinds issue is a critical issue for the Department and for 
the government----
    Mr. Ruppersberger. For our country.
    Mr. Horowitz. And for the country. Absolutely.
    I am going to be limited in what I can say in this setting 
about, frankly, any of the information----
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, and I understand that.
    Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. That we have learned. So I am 
happy to follow up with you in a classified setting to talk 
about that further.
    But I can tell you, we have been in touch with department 
officials, the CIO, to make sure we are aware of and understand 
what occurred and where the weaknesses/vulnerabilities might 
have been. Because we continue to do our FISMA-related work, 
and we need to know that for that purpose, as well as, 
obviously, the implications here of that.
    I have also been in touch with other IGs, including the NSA 
IG and others in the intelligence community. This has been a 
topic of conversation among those of us--and I am one of them--
in the Intelligence Community IG Forum. And we are comparing 
notes--and, again, I will be limited in how much I can say 
here--but we are comparing notes across our information that we 
have gathered to try and understand how we can pursue oversight 
in this space and ensure that the agencies we oversee are 
taking the steps they need to take to address it.
    And, again, I am happy to talk about that further in a 
classified environment.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah. And, you know, SolarWinds was such 
a wake-up call. You know, I mean, we were dealing with Russia 
and China, and then we have the Iran and North Korea and that 
type of thing.
    Just one other issue that I think came up was the fact that 
high-level department officials were using personal devices to 
conduct government business. Now, has that been rectified? What 
was that issue?
    Mr. Horowitz. So we have seen this in multiple situations, 
frankly, where line agents up to the former FBI Director were 
using devices, personal devices, to engage in government-
related business. As you know, as everybody in the Federal 
Government knows, that is a security issue. And we need to 
address that. The Department needs to address it.
    We have made multiple recommendations on that. It is both a 
training issue and an accountability issue, frankly. You need 
to not only train people, but then, if they cross a line, you 
need to address it.
    And it doesn't matter whether it is the highest-level 
official or the line prosecutor, agent, non-prosecutor, non-
agent. We have to drill that into people's heads, that they 
can't use personal devices--in very limited circumstances it is 
allowed, but they can't use personal devices for sensitive 
information usage. It is an easy passage into our systems.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Well, thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    Over to Congressman Cline for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to shift gears a little bit. You talked about 
strengthening public confidence in law enforcement, so I want 
to go down to the portion of your testimony that talks about 
protecting individuals' privacy and the dual reports on FISA: 
the December 2019 review finding fundamental and serious 
deficiencies in connection with FBI applications for FISA 
warrants and a March 2020 follow-on report identifying 
significant concerns with the factual accuracy documentation 
process known as ``Woods Procedures.''
    Can you talk a little bit about the Woods Procedures, what 
problems your office uncovered when reviewing the failures of 
the FBI to follow those procedures, and whether you are 
confident that they are now in compliance with Woods Procedures 
to ensure that each fact in a FISA application is supported 
with documentation?
    Mr. Horowitz. So the Woods Procedures were put in place, as 
you know, Congressman, about 20 years ago by the FBI following 
failures that were identified in FISA court proceedings, and 
they are designed to ensure that the FBI documents every fact 
asserted in a FISA.
    And the concern we have identified recently, after doing 
our December 2019 FISA report, was widespread problems with 
documentation. We found issues where we couldn't find a Woods 
file and neither could the FBI. We identified numerous errors 
in terms of documentation in FISAs where there was a Woods 
file.
    And that doesn't mean, necessarily, that the underlying 
FISA was not supported ultimately by probable cause. That, 
obviously, is for a court to decide, not the OIG. But it does 
show a sloppiness that can lead to the problems that led to the 
implementation of the Woods Procedures 20 years ago.
    So we are about to issue our final report on that, so you 
will see that soon. But what our concern is is that the FBI 
take the steps it needs to ensure that people understand the 
importance of getting every fact right and that slip-ups here 
or there can lead to bigger and bigger problems.
    And so we are seeing steps being taken by the FBI 
leadership to do that. And we are going to follow it carefully, 
as is, I know, the FISA court, which has also issued orders in 
this regard because of its concern.
    Mr. Cline. And I thank you for that. I don't know exactly 
what your timeline is for your final report, but I am glad to 
hear it is coming soon. What you have characterized as slip-ups 
I would call something different--intentional lies, quite 
frankly.
    Let me follow up. Three provisions of FISA expired last 
year. Has your office looked into how the FBI is functioning 
without those capabilities?
    Mr. Horowitz. So let me just--on the slip-up, my comment 
about slip-ups, that was about not the reports we had done 
earlier but, rather, what can happen if you ignore this. You 
end up with maybe minor failures, but----
    Mr. Cline. Gotcha.
    Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. They become bigger failures. 
That is what I meant, just to clarify.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Mr. Horowitz. So, in terms of the expiration of the FISAs, 
I don't know exactly how it has impacted them. I know it became 
a concern about a year ago, when the expiration occurred, but 
I, frankly, have not been engaged by the Department and have 
not engaged with the FBI in how this has impacted them over the 
last year during the pandemic.
    The pandemic has impacted, frankly, our ability to do some 
of this followup work because of the travel restrictions and 
the restrictions on getting into SCIFs and other limitations.
    Mr. Cline. Are you aware of any special rules that exist 
when submitting a FISA application to surveil a political 
campaign?
    Mr. Horowitz. So the Department has, in fact, now put in 
place new procedures and rules to address that concern and that 
issue. So there are now some procedures in place.
    We are going to follow up. We are getting the reports of 
those; it has been told to us. We are going to continue to 
follow up on that to ensure effective implementation and to 
make sure what we are being told is, in fact, accurate. 
Because, as you know, we don't simply accept what we are told. 
We certainly take it in, but then we do the followup to make 
sure it, in fact, has taken place.
    Mr. Cline. I appreciate that.
    And has your office or anyone at DOJ taken a position on 
whether a FISA hearing should be held any time the government 
seeks to conduct such surveillance on a political campaign?
    Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, I don't know what the Department's 
position is on that. I think it has been widely understood how 
significant an event that is and how a decision like that, as 
we noted in our report, really needs to go to the highest 
levels of the Department--the Attorney General, the Deputy 
Attorney General--and not be left, as could have been the case 
previously, to much-lower-level employees.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you for that information. Appreciate that.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    And, at this point, the chair recognizes Congressman Trone 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    If I could just follow up quickly on the comments 
Congresswoman Lawrence made, if you could get back to my office 
on three points.
    Mr. Horowitz. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Trone. And I will have my staff reach out.
    One is the value of and your thoughts on halfway houses, if 
it is a good idea, a bad idea. But we sometimes just keep 
spending money----
    Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Trone [continuing]. Because we spent it the year 
before. I like change, and we don't want to spend money we 
don't have. We want to spend it to be effective.
    The second point would be the data and insights on release 
preparation programs. My visits to prisons--and I have seven in 
my district--have not been that encouraging.
    And the third point would be skills training for that. And 
I would say that has been not encouraging either.
    To follow up on those points, your 2019 report--``The Top 
Management and Performance Challenges Facing the DOJ'' was the 
name of your report--found recidivism reduction remains a major 
challenge. The commission said nearly half the Federal 
offenders released in 2005 rearrested within 8 years. Effective 
reentry programming is an important part of this, we all agree.
    So the Bureau has faced challenges collecting the data. And 
this is what Congressman Cline has been talking about, and I 
completely agree with him. Data is gold to make good decisions. 
So connecting this data regarding performance and effectiveness 
as it relates to recidivism.
    So what findings has the IG made on the biggest 
contributors to the lack of accurate and reliable performance 
data regarding the Department's programs? And what 
recommendations do you have so we can address this data 
insufficiency issue?
    Mr. Horowitz. So, Congressman, you know, you raise several 
important points.
    And, first and foremost, one of the challenges we have seen 
in the Department's data collection efforts is, frankly, the 
challenges of its own IT systems and infrastructure and its 
capacity and capabilities. We now have a data analytics 
capacity and capability, thanks to the committee's support for 
that effort, that is far advanced compared to what the 
Department's components can do, including the BOP.
    As an example, when we started to look at healthcare 
records, we learned that most BOP institutions still got paper 
records. They weren't using electronic medical records. When we 
looked at recidivism issues, we found the Department wasn't 
effectively tracking and gathering data so that it could make 
an assessment of recidivism rates and figure out which programs 
are working, which programs aren't.
    When we did our compassionate release review for elderly 
inmates and compassionate release just generally, we ended up 
doing our own recidivism review by getting information about 
the inmates released, going to the FBI and getting the 
recidivism data from the FBI, and comparing it. But that is the 
kind of information I think should be readily available to 
department leadership when they are looking at something that 
critical, like compassionate release or release preparation 
programs.
    Mr. Trone. All right. So how do we get your department to 
lay out what we need to bring the BOP into the 21st century? I 
mean, because without these data we can't address recidivism. 
We are going to keep spending $80 billion a year.
    We need to invest up front, get the data. Then we can 
understand the outcomes. Then we can get solutions. But we have 
to go ahead and bite the bullet and get the data collection 
done. And if they are using pen and pencil, that is a loser.
    Mr. Horowitz. Yeah. And, look, it starts with--first of 
all, we have made recommendations in this regard, and we can, 
you know, as we are talking about the three issues you 
identified, add this to the list.
    We have made recommendations about this. I think, 
primarily, it involves the Department leadership working with 
BOP leadership to figure out what are our priorities, how are 
we going to get to a space where we can get the data and 
collect the data and be in a position to make assessments, and 
then go, you know, obviously, through the budget process to 
support it, whatever is needed there.
    But there needs to be long-term thinking. I think that is 
one of the things that sometimes can be a challenge with 
budgeting one year at a time and, frankly----
    Mr. Trone. Right.
    Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. When budgets don't get done 
until the fiscal year is 6 months in.
    Mr. Trone. Let me ask one more quick question, if the 
chairman will indulge me, that follows up on this exact point. 
Send me the other data you mentioned. I would like to see that 
also. Add that to my list.
    Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
    Mr. Trone. But part of this reducing recidivism is linking 
community-based programs to prisons, especially substance use, 
mental health, and employment. And it is especially now true 
with COVID.
    So what has the IG has found regarding efficacy of these 
community programs and social support services provided by the 
residential reentry program management centers we just spoke 
about versus to those on home confinement?
    Mr. Horowitz. So we haven't done our own undertaking to 
look at the community-based programs to, ourselves, sort of get 
into the local communities and look at this. What we have done 
is looked at the halfway houses and gone and said, okay, what 
is the evidence that you have that the halfway houses are 
working well, that the programs that they are supporting are 
working well?
    And, again, we are stuck with an absence of data. So that 
is, again, an area where we have made recommendations that the 
BOP needs to look at halfway house programs and look at those 
community-based programs and are they working effectively. Is 
it better than, for example, sending people to their homes 
instead of a halfway house? And if it is, you are talking 
about, obviously, a substantial amount of money that can be 
reinvested in other places.
    But until you actually know what you are getting, what your 
money is buying from the halfway houses, beyond what you assume 
it is buying, you are not going to be in a position to figure 
out what is the best and highest use of the money. That has 
been our challenge over the years.
    Mr. Trone. Agree. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Inspector General, I just want to kind of button up the 
tail end of the conversation we were having in the last round 
with regards to the body cams.
    Do you have an explicit ask of us here in this committee to 
help with the funding to make sure that we are getting the 
body-cam hardware, firmware, software, as well as all the--a 
lot of the costs on the body cam is actually on the maintenance 
and the documentation and the memorialization of the videos. Is 
that already something, in work with us, that you are 
requesting?
    Mr. Horowitz. It isn't. We are finishing up our audit and 
our review that we are going to get to the Department and 
publicly to you about these issues.
    And partly that is going to be--you know, that is one of 
the issues we are seeing, is, again, as you just indicated, you 
can't go down the road of body-worn cameras until you have the 
policy in place on how to deal with it and an understanding of 
what kind of funding and infrastructure you are going to need, 
like local communities have figured out. How is it going to--
not only what kind of cameras are you going to use, but what 
are you going to do with the data? How long are you going to 
keep it for? Where are you going to store it? Security issues 
around that. Right?
    All of those things that local communities have figured 
out, that has to happen at the Federal level.
    Mr. Garcia. Yeah. Okay. Good. Well, I think we are all 
looking forward to that. I think the feedback we are getting 
from local law enforcement, to include sheriffs, municipal 
county police departments, is that it is benefiting not only 
the police officers but also the public. It has taken a lot of 
the ambiguity out of, you know, the arbitration and the, sort 
of, determination within a lot of these audits and 
investigations on the back side. So looking forward to 
supporting you, hopefully sooner rather than later.
    You mention in your testimony we had shortages and what 
sounded like recruiting and retention issues in terms of 
personnel. Can you touch on what is driving that? And, more 
importantly, what can we do to help?
    I know, as the headcount gets more and more constrained, 
they get overworked, that actually aggravates the retention 
problem, which then makes it tougher to recruit as well, and it 
is sort of a death spiral in many ways. How can we stop this 
bleeding, and how do we kind of turn it around and help you get 
whole again?
    Mr. Horowitz. Uh-huh. So I think the challenge, for 
example, for the BOP, in some locations, is a pay challenge. 
These are extremely challenging jobs, as we all know----
    Mr. Garcia. Sure.
    Mr. Horowitz. --And if you are in a metropolitan area, 
paying one rate, it is going to be a hard time getting that 
recruiting undertaken.
    And then I can speak to the challenge just generally about 
onboarding personnel from my own agency and from every other 
government leader I have heard. It is a challenge getting 
people on. It can take months and months and months. The lag 
time--it is easy to lose somebody. If people want to leave, 
they leave within a few weeks. It can take months to get a 
hiring announcement out. And then you have to get people 
through the background checks, the drug testing, all the things 
that go with being hired as a correctional officer in 
particular.
    So I think there needs to be a sustained effort to figure 
out how to move forward and anticipate you are going to have 
departures better so that you can get ahead of losing people at 
some level.
    Mr. Garcia. Right.
    Mr. Horowitz. And that is a challenge.
    Mr. Garcia. It doesn't seem--it may be aggravated in the 
last, maybe, year or so with this push to defund the police and 
law enforcement, but it is still not something that is 
unpredictable. It is something that a lot of organizations and 
businesses deal with regularly, especially with the cost of 
living and the impending inflation challenges.
    Do you think that we are adequately capturing the need to 
attract talent? If it is a money problem, are we doing a good 
enough job of baking that into budget requests so that we can 
actually get people on board, so that we can actually keep 
people on board, so that we can throw more personnel and 
resources at the background investigations and the security 
clearance process if that is needed? Is that adequately 
captured in the budget request right now at the DOJ level?
    Mr. Horowitz. I think that is a very important issue that 
you have identified, Congressman. And the GAO report recently 
about the Bureau of Prisons on this highlights it, right? It 
is, you need to step back and think about what are your 
staffing needs and what are the metrics that support what you 
are asking for? And what they found was the BOP hadn't done 
that basic work that it needed to do.
    And then they need to sit down in the budgeting process, 
and they need a seat at the table at the highest levels that 
say, this is what we need. And then they need to be able to 
come to you and they testify and say: Appropriators, here is 
what we need to do this job effectively and to secure and make 
the prisons safe.
    I will give you a parallel. We are doing this review right 
now in judicial security--an extraordinarily serious issue that 
the Marshals have responsibility for. And that report is going 
to be out in the next couple of months, maybe sooner than that. 
We are finishing it up. And that is a similar question: What 
are your metrics for what you need to protect judges? Sit down 
and have an honest discussion at the highest levels of the 
Department and with the appropriators, and let's figure out 
what you need to make sure that judicial security is handled 
appropriately.
    Similar issue to the prison security. I just think that----
    Mr. Garcia. Yes.
    Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. That kind of thinking has to go 
on, and it is critical, as you said.
    Mr. Garcia. Yeah. I am new to this game, and I am blown 
away that that is not fundamental in this process already.
    But I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
    Thank you, Inspector General.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    And we are going to move to a final lightning round.
    And, Inspector General, you have worn down most of this 
subcommittee, so you can brag about that back at the office.
    But I want to pick up where we just left off. You were 
talking about the Federal Marshals Service, and that is 
something that I have been interested in.
    The U.S. Marshals Service has really had a daunting 
challenge with the pandemic. It had a detainee population of 
61,000, 70 percent of them under intergovernmental agreements, 
IGAs, spread across 873 State and county facilities. Detainees 
have to be moved between facilities and courts and are at high 
risk of spreading contagious disease. You found the Marshals 
Service facility oversight plans were inadequate--you found 
that--and that they did not ensure CDC guidance was followed. 
You also observed that the Marshals Service did not apply the 
same scrutiny to monitoring its IGA facilities as compared to 
contract-managed ones, in part because they lacked the control 
that existed with the contract arrangements. You also noted 
that the Marshals Service transported prisoners without testing 
to confirm they were COVID-negative.
    And the Marshals Service generally agreed with your 
findings and committed to implement the six recommendations in 
your audit by the end of this month. Are you confident that 
they will? And please explain why or why not.
    Mr. Horowitz. Well, we will see. The proof will be in the 
details. So I am hopeful they will. I will hold my answer on 
whether I am confident they will until I see what they report 
back to us. But they told us their commitment is there, I 
believe in what they have said to us, but we will test it when 
we get it, their report on this.
    It is very important, as you said, that they take these 
steps. We have learned a lot in the last year from the BOP and 
the Marshals. They can do much better than occurred a year ago, 
and we will see. This will be the first report back from them 
on that.
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Let's stay in touch about that.
    Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
    Mr. Cartwright. Finally, I want to talk about violent 
crime. In 2020, the Department of Justice launched several 
initiatives targeting violent crime, particularly in seven 
cities that were seeing a surge in violence, notably Operation 
Relentless Pursuit, followed by Operation Legend, which also 
involved cooperation with State and local law enforcement.
    There has also been an increase in targeted violence, 
specifically hate crimes, such as the recent attacks on Asian 
Americans in Atlanta and elsewhere, the 2019 massacre at the El 
Paso Walmart in Texas, the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, 
and, of course, the Charleston church shooting in 2015.
    Your office is currently reviewing DOJ's strategic plan and 
accountability measures, including coordination across 
prosecution, law enforcement, and grant-making components. The 
review will also assess the Department's strategic plan for 
aiding communities that are confronting significant increases 
in homicides and gun violence.
    Have you any preliminary observations or recommendations 
for actions the new Attorney General can take to best leverage 
DOJ resources to deal with violent crime?
    Mr. Horowitz. I will say, at a high level, what we have 
seen is that, in connection with violent crime, the first and 
foremost critical piece of that for the Federal Government is 
strong, as you indicated, partnerships with State and local law 
enforcement and, beyond State and local law enforcement, 
community leaders. It is not going to work as the Feds run in 
with their law enforcement and fix the violent-crime problem. 
It has to be a cooperative, close working relationship.
    Having been an AUSA and a prosecutor in Manhattan back in 
the 1990s, you know, it is clear that the local law enforcement 
is on the ground and understands communities better than 
anyone, if they are doing their jobs right. And that is where 
the partnerships have to come up. Community leaders know that. 
They understand where the violent crime is. They understand 
where the gang problem is, right? They are the ones that need 
to have that working relationship with Federal law enforcement.
    So, first and foremost, I would say, that would be my first 
recommendation in that regard to whoever is thinking about a 
program like that, is it is unlikely that the Federal law 
enforcement is going to be able to do it alone and go it alone.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.
    And I am going to recognize Mr. Garcia again for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I will be very brief, Inspector General.
    Just in your professional opinion and everything that you 
have seen throughout your career, do you think at the DOJ 
level, whether it is the FBI, DEA, ATF, the Marshals, and I 
think also to include BOP, that we are doing enough as a Nation 
right now to hold the folks who are involved in these 
international, these transnational criminal organizations that 
are facilitating this crisis at the border right now--it is not 
a new thing. It has gotten worse over the last 3 months, but it 
has been an ongoing struggle for our country.
    This is something that, if we don't do it correctly, it 
actually aggravates your problems internally. It aggravates the 
recruiting and retention problems that you have with your 
personnel.
    But, at a macro level, it is absolutely one of the biggest 
threats to our Nation's security right now, and it is a Federal 
problem, right? This is happening in a few States along our 
southern border, but these people are being smuggled and then 
indentured as servants throughout the 50 States of the Nation 
here.
    Are we doing enough? And, in your opinion, what should we 
be doing, if you don't mind just giving us your perspective?
    Mr. Horowitz. Well, I will just say, from a DOJ perspective 
and just generally from having dealt with issues that are 
broad-based and cross-cutting, I think very important that this 
is--the border issues are not just a DHS issue, a DOJ issue, a 
State Department issue--pick your agency.
    Mr. Garcia. Right.
    Mr. Horowitz. To address that and look at that--and the 
transnational crime problem is a perfect example of that--there 
are law enforcement agencies, obviously, at DOJ that need to be 
involved in that, as, obviously, prosecutors need to be 
critically involved in that, but DHS has key responsibilities 
that they have to work effectively with DOJ law enforcement. 
There can't be an us-versus-them mentality.
    They need to be engaged with the State Department, because 
they have primary responsibility for managing overseas posts. 
When law enforcement goes and works in-country in many foreign 
countries, as you know, that we are operating, they work 
through the Ambassador, so you have to have a strong State 
Department relationship, right?
    And I could add other entities as well. The intelligence 
side of the house needs to be engaged, because you need strong 
intelligence to deal with these issues. And, while the FBI is 
an intelligence agency, they are obviously not a go-it-alone on 
that; they need foreign counterparts to be part of that 
discussion as well.
    So I think that is something that, as people are looking at 
border issues, transnational crime issues, the hard questions 
to ask are, how are you addressing it not only internally from 
your own budget priorities and your own strategic plans, but 
how are you making sure that you are leveraging the needs that 
you have from State Department, DHS, foreign agency 
counterparts, intelligence community counterparts?
    Because the problem isn't going to be solved by saying, 
``Go, FBI, to the border.'' And, frankly, I don't think it is 
solved, necessarily, by saying to the border prosecutors--and 
we saw a little bit about, you know, this challenge--``Go 
arrest everybody.'' That didn't get to the outcome that people 
wanted either, and even the most supportive prosecutors raised 
concern about that as well.
    So I think that is really what has to happen. And that is 
really one of the learnings from our ``zero tolerance'' policy 
report, is the importance of the whole-of-government approach 
and not just saying--the Department, a handful of people 
saying, ``Let's go try and do this and see what happens.''
    Mr. Garcia. Yeah. Well-said. That makes sense. I completely 
agree and resonate with that. That is a very good point. My 
inference from your comment is that we really, right now, are 
not optimized from one department or agency to the next, 
outside of the DOJ to others. So I think we should work for 
that.
    At a very macro level, I think our strongest challenge 
right now--and these are my words, not yours; I don't want to 
put you in a bad position--but we don't, as a Nation, have a 
holistic approach to this challenge right now. And it feels 
like it is a strategy of denying that there is a problem and a 
whack-a-mole approach at certain State levels who are trying to 
do the right thing while our Nation is being overrun by a very 
porous border and illegal immigrants.
    So I am hopeful that this administration can provide us 
with that holistic national security strategy to hopefully end 
this crisis soon and allow the various agencies to start 
working together in the interest of making sure that we can 
survive as a Nation.
    Thank you, Inspector General, for your time.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    And, Inspector General Horowitz, you have a long way to go 
before you wear down Representative David Trone, who is 
recognized for another 5 minutes.
    Mr. Trone. I am sorry, sir. You have been a trouper. I 
really thank you. But this is an area of special interest to 
me, the Bureau of Prisons.
    I want to pile on Chairman Cartwright's comments about the 
U.S. Marshals Service. I have a lot of excellent members of 
AFGE in my facility in Cumberland, Maryland. And many of them 
also work in the facility in Hazelton, West Virginia, but live 
in my district. And these members have been very adversely 
affected by what the Marshals' lack of COVID protocols have 
been. And after a bout of that, we had over 82 inmates and 
numerous staff come down and test COVID-positive. So we 
appreciate your input on this.
    Let's jump over to the First Step implementation. Criminal 
justice reform we got out of the gate. It wasn't a big step, 
but it was the first step. We have a declining inmate 
population and, as Chairman Cartwright mentioned, significant 
staff shortages.
    The First Step Act required the IRC to do a report--and we 
spoke last week to the head of BOP about this--that said: Even 
a full return to pre-COVID BOP programming levels will not be 
sufficient to make available evidence-based recidivism 
reduction programs and productive activities for all of the 
eligible prisoners in custody by January 2022, as the First 
Step requires.
    So we are not even getting done what we said we were going 
to do. And I am sure there are a lot of excuses for that. But, 
at the end of the day, can you just tell us a couple things, 
short and sweet, that we have to help to address the staffing 
shortage?
    Because if we don't get the staffing right, as Mr. Garcia 
talked about, it is a vicious cycle. We lose the existing 
people, we spend money on training, and we don't achieve our 
outcome, which is reducing recidivism.
    So what do we need to get done to help reduce these, 
recruit, retain?
    Mr. Horowitz. So I think, first of all, the BOP has to come 
up with its institution-by-institution issues. Some 
institutions are not understaffed. Other institutions are 
significantly understaffed. They have to come up with, what is 
our shortage of correctional officers, what is our shortage of 
healthcare workers and other staff, and come forward and get to 
the Department's leadership and get before the appropriators 
and say, here are our shortages, here is how we have calculated 
and determined them, and this is the funding we need to meet 
those challenges. First step.
    The second action is then to proactively plan and address 
those shortages, rather than wait for vacancies, rather than, 
frankly, wait for decisions to be made, necessarily. Given the 
months' lag--again, I am doing this in my own agency--we hire, 
often, ahead of vacancies, because I know every year I am going 
to have X number of retirements or resignations. And I have 500 
employees. It is a lot easier with 30,000 employees to 
understand, right, what the annual turnover is likely to be. I 
think that proactive planning is critical.
    But I really think it starts with reading the GAO report, 
understanding what your staffing needs are, institution by 
institution.
    Mr. Trone. So I couldn't agree with you more. I own a 
business with 200-and-some locations around 27 States. I have 
11,000-plus employees that work for me. And we do our staffing 
8 weeks in advance. We never look at today. We look at where we 
are going to be in 2 months from now to take up that lag time. 
And we anticipate retirements. In the management ranks, we 
anticipate, you know, folks are going to turn over. So we 
overstaff to properly staff. And we do that thoughtfully, and 
that gets us better outcomes. So we are totally aligned on 
this. It is just Management 101.
    Can you have your team figure out how my team can get a 
report? Because it is----
    Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
    Mr. Trone [continuing]. Facility by facility.
    Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Trone. In my 200 stores, I have 150 that are perfect; I 
have 25 or 30 that are struggling; and I have 20 losers, and 
they just generally aren't focusing on staffing. Generally, it 
is a lack of focus. It is not always the people just aren't 
there. That is what they say. And they say they don't have 
enough pay. That is what they say. But a lot of that is just BS 
and that the people are there but they aren't prioritizing 
staffing first.
    And if you don't have enough people and you don't have the 
right people, you will never be successful. This is not 
complicated.
    Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
    Mr. Trone. So, if you can get us the report on what the 
staffing is, the allocated staffing at those multiple hundred 
facilities, and then where they are today, and then we can 
force-rank them worst to best. And then we can try and push BOP 
as to say, you can do better than this. Because we can't meet 
the first step, we can't do what we have committed to do to 
these returning citizens, and then it costs taxpayers lots and 
lots of money.
    So I appreciate your help.
    Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely. Look forward to working with you 
on this, Congressman, because I agree. I could talk about these 
issues for a long time.
    Mr. Trone. Yes. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
    And, General Horowitz, thank you for your testimony here 
today.
    I remind you, as I remind all members, that further 
questions may be submitted to you in connection with this 
hearing. An email address has already been circulated to all 
the members and their staffs. And so, General Horowitz, you may 
be getting further written questions, and we will appreciate 
your prompt answers to those.
    Mr. Cartwright. Again, thank you for attending today, 
General Horowitz.
    And this hearing is adjourned.
    Mr. Horowitz. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

                                         Wednesday, April 14, 2021.

   THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

                                WITNESS

SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. Let us gavel in and begin. As 
this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's hearing, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I notice you have not unmuted yourself, 
I may ask you if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you 
indicate approval by nodding, staff will then go ahead and 
unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time. You will notice the clock on 
your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At the 
1-minute remaining mark, the clock will turn to yellow. At 30 
seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind 
members that their time has almost expired. When your time has 
expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize 
the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the 
chair and ranking member. Then members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority, and finally, members not present at the time the 
hearing is called to order.
    And, at last, the House rules require me to remind you that 
we have set up an email address to which members can send 
anything they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings 
or markups, and that email address has been provided in advance 
to your staff.
    All right. The subcommittee will come to order. Good 
morning, everyone. Today, we welcome the Director of the 
National Science Foundation, Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan. And 
Dr. Panchanathan is relatively new to the National Science 
Foundation, having been confirmed to the Director position on 
June 18 of 2020. Dr. Panchanathan is a computer scientist and 
engineer, and comes to us having served as a leader in science, 
engineering, and education for more than 30 years.
    Prior to joining NSF, Dr. Panchanathan served as Executive 
Vice President of the Arizona State University Knowledge 
Enterprise where he was also Chief Research and Innovation 
Officer. He was also the founder and the director of the Center 
for Cognitive Ubiquitous Computing at ASU. In 2014, he was 
appointed by President Obama to the National Science Board 
where he chaired the Committee on Strategy and served as a 
member of the External Engagement and National Science and 
Engineering Policy Committees. As Director Of NSF, Dr. 
Panchanathan is funding work at the frontiers of science and 
cultivating the next generation of STEM leaders. His efforts 
will be critical, not only for renewing America's global 
leadership, but also for rebuilding our Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure and creating family-sustaining American jobs in 
communities, large and small.
    Just as science will be a key to our recovery, so too has 
it been in our fight against COVID-19. I applaud NSF for the 
more than 1,000 COVID-19 rapid grants it has awarded to help 
understand, combat, and recover from this pandemic. I also want 
to thank all of our scientists and researchers who cracked the 
code of the coronavirus and developed safe and effective 
vaccines. Science is getting us out of this pandemic faster 
than anyone could imagine possible. You remember when we first 
got into it, they were talking, the virologists, the 
epidemiologists, they were saying no one has ever done this in 
less than 3 or 4 years. Here we are, 15 months later, and we 
are already looking at the light at the end of the tunnel.
    Fittingly, the President's discretionary request for fiscal 
year 2022 includes historic investments for NSF. In all, the 
budget proposes $10.17 billion for NSF, a 20 percent increase 
over the 2021 enacted level. I was pleased to see the proposed 
funding boost for research and development and plans to broaden 
the mission of NSF in order to accelerate the translation of 
basic research into new technologies in areas such as 
semiconductors and advanced computing, advanced communications 
technology, and advancements in energy and biotechnology.
    NSF will play a critical role in discovering and advancing 
new technologies, including those that will reduce emissions 
and create sustainable solutions. As someone who truly believes 
that climate change poses an existential threat to our planet, 
I was especially pleased to see that the President's budget 
proposes essential investments in climate science, clean 
energy, and sustainability research. The $1.2 billion for 
advances in climate science and clean energy-related research 
would allow us better to understand the dynamics of the earth's 
climate systems, its impacts, and how we can better help our 
communities and those across the globe to plan a better future.
    The discretionary request also includes a 50 percent 
increase, or $100 million, over the fiscal year 2021 enacted 
levels for programs that aim to increase the participation in 
STEM of underrepresented groups. America has incredible talent 
across our country, across socioeconomic and racial lines, in 
urban areas, in rural areas. Too often, we have not fully 
utilized this talent and not given enough opportunities and 
inspiration to young people who need it.
    Such investments, which grow our domestic STEM talent pool, 
are long overdue. If you look at the wealth created in this 
country over the last couple of generations, so much of it 
stems from technological and scientific innovations. Companies 
exist now that are at the top of the Fortune 500 that did not 
exist a generation ago, and they are only there because of 
science and technology improvements.
    I also want to talk about the investments included in this 
bill--in this budget for construction of and upgrades to the 
major NSF facilities, such as the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, 
and the McMurdo Station. They illustrate the administration's 
commitment to NSF programs for science, the academic community, 
and the next generation of scientists, mathematicians, 
astronomers, and engineers across the country as they continue 
their important research.
    I am looking forward to the furtherance of innovation that 
will inevitably result from future scientific advancements. I 
am a strong supporter of NSF and its mission to promote the 
progress of science, and prepare us for the technologies of 
tomorrow.
    So, thank you once again, Dr. Panchanathan, for joining us 
today, and I look forward to discussing the NSF's fiscal year 
2022 budget request with you.
    At this point, I would like to yield to Ranking Member 
Aderholt for his opening statement.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, good morning, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. It is good to be with everyone virtually this 
morning. And thank you for holding this important hearing with 
the National Science Foundation and the Director. As I say, I 
am glad to be here with you even though we are virtually 
meeting today for the fiscal year 2022 budget for the NSF with 
our witness, Director Panchanathan. And, thank you, Dr. 
Panchanathan, for being here, and for being able to allow us 
this time with you to address some of the issues that members 
have on their minds.
    We are here today at an important time in our Nation's 
history. Of course, it goes without saying that the global 
pandemic has caused a lot of--so much loss and suffering, but 
at the same time, it has illustrated the speed at which the 
scientific community can mobilize to discover solutions which 
provide adequate resources, as the chair has pointed out.
    The need to mobilize has perhaps never been greater. The 
United States has long been the world leader in science, and 
also in technology investments, that have transformed our lives 
and has fueled our economy and has secured our Nation as a 
whole. But for the last decade, we have seen a tremendous surge 
in similar investments from China, and that is coupled with 
efforts to acquire U.S. intellectual property that they are 
trying to do unlawfully.
    In many respects, technology is being used as a modern 
battlefield. As the National Science Board testified last year, 
China has now likely surpassed us in terms of total research 
and development expenditures. Industries of the future such as 
artificial intelligence, advance communications, and quantum 
information science, while already reshaping the world we live 
in, are still in their infancy in terms of what we actually 
understand. We are in a race to learn, and the stakes are high.
    At the same time, we see the world's climate changing, and 
first, there are differences of opinion, of course, of what all 
contributes to that, but we must figure out how to mitigate and 
adapt our changing world. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I 
firmly believe that the United States' ability to enhance the 
security and the quality of life of its citizens depends upon 
investing in and maintaining our Nation's status as a world 
leader in scientific research and development. Exactly how we 
do that is another matter.
    While we likely agree on the bigger goals, we may find 
ourselves, from time to time, in disagreement over the 
priorities and details once we are faced with limited 
subcommittee allocations. Nevertheless, I remain committed to 
working with you and the rest of our colleagues on this 
subcommittee to find a bipartisan path forward in the coming 
year.
    Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. 
Thank you for our distinguished witness for taking the helm at 
the NSF, especially during this important time of our history, 
and Mr. Director, I look forward to your testimony.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
    And, Dr. Panchanathan, you are recognized at this time for 
your opening remarks. I ask that you please try to keep your 
statement to 5 minutes. And always remember, your full written 
statement will be included in the record. And you are 
recognized, Dr. Panchanathan.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you. And good morning, Chairman 
Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members of the 
subcommittee. It is truly an honor to appear before you today 
to discuss NSF's many amazing accomplishments and how we can 
activate innovation at speed and scale for the benefit of all 
Americans.
    I would like to start by thanking this committee for the 
continuing support for NSF. It has enabled NSF to advance 
research and innovation and bring remarkable benefits to our 
Nation.
    For the past seven decades, NSF has played a leading role 
in building U.S. leadership in science, engineering, and 
technology, and has an incredibly strong record of investing in 
the brightest minds with outstanding ideas. The internet, 3D 
printing, the economic theory underpinning spectrum auctioning, 
and kidney exchanges. Companies like Qualcomm, and even PCR 
testing, which has been critical to the fight against COVID-19, 
are just a few examples of the outcomes and benefits of NSF's 
investments. NSF also has a rich history of fostering the 
entrepreneurial spirit that permeates the research enterprise.
    I would also like to thank Congress for the funding in the 
CARES Act, and the American Rescue Plan. The pandemic has had a 
profound impact on the research community, especially early 
career researchers. NSF will invest these funds wisely, helping 
the most severely impacted and most vulnerable.
    For the first time in decades, the United States leadership 
in science and engineering is facing intense global 
competition. Other nations, especially China, are investing 
vast resources in basic research and industries of the future, 
like artificial intelligence. The United States needs to take a 
comprehensive approach to R&D investment that brings science, 
engineering, and technological innovations to market much more 
rapidly. Doing so requires tightly integrating curiosity-driven 
research and use-inspired outcomes.
    My leadership team and I have crafted a bold vision for the 
agency. First, we must advance the frontiers of science and 
engineering research into the future. Through strategic 
investments, NSF steers the frontiers of discovery and 
innovation and produces breakthroughs that keep the U.S. at the 
forefront of global leadership.
    Second, we must ensure accessibility and inclusivity. There 
is tremendous untapped potential throughout our Nation. Every 
demographic and socioeconomic group in every geographic region 
is full of talent, and must be inspired and given the 
opportunity to participate in STEM.
    Finally, America must lead by our actions and our values. 
We will work with like-minded partners who share these values, 
and we must and will take the necessary steps to safeguard 
taxpayer investments. The foundation for this vision is 
partnerships. They are powerful tools to leverage resources and 
develop more impactful results.
    NSF has a history of cultivating and fostering environments 
where partnerships thrive. Over the past few weeks, the 
administration has released the American Jobs Plan and the 
fiscal year 2022 discretionary request. These proposals invest 
in research and development across the government. The 
proposals also include increased investments at NSF, including 
a $50 billion investment in a new technology directorate, and a 
20 percent increase to the NSF budget in Fiscal Year 2022.
    The budget request increases funding for fundamental R&D 
and will strengthen NSF's ability to champion the basic 
research that is critical for our future.
    In addition, we know there are opportunities for 
transitional impacts in all science and engineering fields that 
hold enormous potential benefits. The proposed directorate will 
be a cross-cutting platform that leverages, energizes, and 
rapidly brings the innovations to market. NSF will not abandon 
our current mission or be redundant with other mission agencies 
who are doing vital work. We all know we have a large gap in 
bringing fantastic individual ideas to market and society. This 
is our opportunity to rapidly change that.
    The budget request also invests in increasing the 
participation of underrepresented groups in science and 
engineering, which is exceedingly important for our Nation. 
Advances in technologies, such as artificial intelligence, 
quantum information science, and even the technologies we 
cannot even conceive of will influence the global balance of 
power for generations. We must commit ourselves to this 
challenge so that we are leaping forward and ensuring that the 
race for global leadership is not even close.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 
With the continued support of this committee, and the Congress, 
NSF will bolster fundamental research across all fields of 
science and engineering, and unleash rapid innovations, 
securing our future for generations to come. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, and Ranking Member.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Dr. Panchanathan. We are 
now going to proceed to our question period. I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes of questions. And, Doctor, I 
would ask that you--I have a few questions to cover in 5 
minutes, and I would ask you to keep that in mind when 
answering. Try to keep it to about a minute or so for each 
answer.
    First, the President's budget requests, asks for 
significant increases in funding and investment in America that 
he envisions will create millions of good jobs, rebuild our 
country's infrastructure, and position the United States to be 
a world leader and out-compete China. I think we can all agree 
that to be a world leader in science and engineering, we need 
to invest heavily in world class, cutting-edge research 
infrastructure.
    So the first question is: How does this proposal compare to 
the investments being made in China and other countries in 
research and development and creating the technologies of the 
future? Do you feel this budget sets us up for success in 
competing internationally?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you look at 
the investments, specifically in China, the last few years, 
China has been investing four times as much in terms of growth 
than the United States, and they are catching up to us. And so 
clearly, we are at a moment where it is exceedingly important 
that we make sure we are investing in fundamental research as 
well as the transitional research, both at the same time, so 
that we can out-compete and leap forward in terms of 
progressing. It is not about even being close, as I said in my 
remarks. It is about leapfrogging and being way ahead in terms 
of our innovation abilities. So to that end, Mr. Chairman, we 
need to commit ourselves to robust, sustained investments in 
R&D as called for in the President's job plan as well as the 
fiscal year 2022 request. I think this is an exceedingly 
important time. It is a very important moment for us to show 
that we are not going to let any other nation out-compete us.
    Mr. Cartwright. Very good. Now, secondly, the request 
included a proposal to create a new directorate for technology 
as has also been suggested in the National Science Foundation 
for the Future Act and the Endless Frontier Act. This new 
directorate would focus on applied research. Given NSF's 
history of supporting basic scientific research, curiosity-
driven research, as you say, how do you envision incorporating 
this new direction with the rest of NSF's focus on basic 
research?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I have been 
observing the vision of NSF as DNA. One strand of the DNA is 
the curiosity-driven research. The other strand of the DNA is 
the youth-inspired research. These are highly intertwined and 
synergistic. That is what NSF has been, and now we are going to 
accelerate the progress into the future.
    So I envision the directorate to be horizontal, a 
horizontal that weaves through all the verticals of the other 
directorates so that we are leveraging what the other 
directorates are inventing, making possible, and energizing, as 
well as transmitting rapidly in partnership with industry and 
others, so that we may get the technologies out to the 
marketplace in a rapid fashion.
    Mr. Cartwright. Very good. And, thirdly, a 2018 report from 
the National Science Board said the board's conversations 
underscored the genuine concern that U.S. investments in mid-
scale research infrastructure are far outpaced by those of our 
European, Japanese, and Chinese counterparts, unquote. Now, I 
know that NSF has been working hard to strengthen its mid-scale 
programs. Can you tell me if the mid-scale programs remain a 
priority for the agency, and how you are working to address the 
need in that area?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely. Mid-
scale is a top priority for the agency for the reasons that you 
outlined very clearly. So we are very grateful to Congress' 
support, including increased funding for mid-scale too and the 
MRESC programs. This is a very important funding, and makes 
possible critical research instrumentation in the U.S.
    This is a very important time, as I was saying earlier, to 
advance our scientific ideas. For example, this has made 
possible the first of a kind [inaudible] For new science in the 
high magnetic field frontier at Cornell University, for 
example. That is just one example. So the demand is huge. We 
see billions in proposals, so I would say Mr. Chairman, 
absolutely a high priority, and we need to be investing heavily 
in this area.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. And just to finish things off, 
my ears aren't what they used to be, Dr. Panchanathan. Did you 
say China is outspending us 4 to 1 on basic research?
    Mr. Panchanathan. In the rate of increase. They are 
investing at the rate of 4 times higher than what we are 
investing, and so that is a significant, steep climb for them. 
Clearly, they have been lagging behind, and they are catching 
up to us fast is the message that I was trying to communicate, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    I would like to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Director, or Dr. Director, the deep south is culturally 
diverse, as you know. It is a geographic region of the United 
States, and historically, it has lagged behind in many economic 
indicators, including scientific research and development. When 
we think about diversity, I think geographic diversity should 
be included in our consideration so that families and students, 
professionals everywhere in the country, have opportunities to 
participate in higher education and also in research.
    Included in your budget, you take the strong step of 
requesting a roughly 50 percent increase in programs that aim 
to increase participation from individuals who are 
traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering. If 
Congress provides the increases for these and other programs 
across the agency, how would this idea of geographic diversity 
impact your plans, and to invest in the future of areas such as 
the deep south, for example, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, 
Georgia, and just the Appalachian region as a whole?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for asking this 
question again. You know, a center pillar--when I outlined the 
vision when I came to the agency, the center pillar of the 
three pillars that I outlined was accessibility and 
inclusivity. Having myself come from a State that I have seen 
firsthand that talent and ideas are everywhere. They are not 
limited to any geographic part of the United States. They are 
all across the socioeconomic spectrum that you can think about.
    I have committed myself to ensuring that we are inspiring, 
motivating, and making possible talent in every part of our 
mission, because it is exceedingly important if you want to 
out-compete China. The domestic talent should be unleashed at 
full force and full scale, and I am deeply committed to that.
    So to the investments, therefore, we are going to be 
unleashing not only new programs, but strengthening existing 
programs. Some of the pilots are working. And so we want to 
make sure that we are going to have the diversity that you 
point out rightly across the geography as well as socioeconomic 
demographics. We livened up and so that prosperity is 
everywhere. Prosperity everywhere will only guarantee 
prosperity of our Nation.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. And when you say that diversity 
across, I mean, obviously, the deep south would be included in 
that, correct?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Absolutely. Absolutely. I will give you 
one example. We launched AI Institutes last fall. And the seven 
AI institutes--when I came here, I said the AI Institutes 
project is going to be called AI in Every State, because every 
State should be energized and be leveraged in terms of their AI 
capacities, so AI in Every State. We have 20 States covered 
with the first seven institutes. We now have eight more 
institutes coming up. And I expect that soon, we will have 
every part of the region, including the great south, to be 
partners in terms of evolving this unbelievable ecosystem of 
prosperity through technologies like AI being enabled.
    Mr. Aderholt. Speaking of artificial intelligence, the 
previous administration proposed a significant increase in the 
National Science Foundation's investment in artificial 
intelligence for the current fiscal year, and Congress provided 
the agency with the flexibility and the authority to invest up 
to the requested level of $830 million.
    My question is, how does the NSF plan to invest in 
artificial intelligence in the current fiscal year, fiscal year 
2021, under the new administration? And if it is less than $830 
million, the agency proposed and Congress authorized, where is 
NSF choosing to spend the difference in this amount?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So basically, what I can tell you is AI 
investments remain very robust in the agency. And what I would 
like to point out is, having been a computer scientist myself, 
and AI is my field of expertise, I can tell you with certainty 
that AI investments are not only in the directorates that you 
would think, such as computer information sciences or in 
engineering, but almost in every directorate, because AI has 
the potential for not only advancing the fundamental part of 
AI, but also the application of AI.
    We are partnered with USDA, NIFA. We are partnered with the 
Department of Transportation. We are partnered with the 
Department of Homeland Security. And you will be happy to know 
that I have leveraged this by accessing more capital from 
outside partnerships. The combination of Amazon, Accenture, 
Intel, and Google, have invested $30 million now. We have 
attracted that investment to augment the AI investments.
    So I can tell you that the AI investments are very robust 
in the agency. And if you look at the companion technologies 
that make AI possible, that is a very, very significant 
investment portfolio in the agency. And, so, we are not, by any 
means, walking away from the AI focus in the agency. I can 
assure you of that.
    Mr. Aderholt. And you are planning to spend that $830 
million as currently proposed?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So as I was saying, I don't have the 
exact numbers in front of me, but I am happy to share that with 
you offline. Happy to share that with you. But I can tell you 
that because we are looking at every part of what AI influence 
is in terms of how we are looking at the technology 
advancements and the impact of the technology, you know. We are 
looking at it in the broad-based way in which NSF is investing, 
and we will be happy to share the data with you.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. That would be helpful.
    And just in closing, how does the National Science 
Foundation plan to invest in the coming fiscal year? And, of 
course, you mentioned that it is going to be all over, but do 
you plan to really closely follow the recent recommendations of 
the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So we are definitely participating and 
closely watching and monitoring the NSCAI recommendations, and 
these are, as you know, recommendations that many of which we 
share, because we are part of the dialogue, and also 
contributing to some of these ideas and thoughts that come to 
the NSCAI.
    So I can tell that you we are very synchronized with NSCAI 
in terms of how we are looking at what AI can do in the future, 
including the concepts of how we might address the 
technological progress, the application domain, as well as 
issues such as privacy, security, ethics, as well as what can 
we do in terms of implicit bias and other recommendations that 
are coming out. So, clearly, we will be tracking that very 
closely and see what we can do.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    At this point, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Grace 
Meng from New York.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 
Panchanathan, for being here and for all your work.
    I had a question in general about more support for early 
grantees. President Biden unveiled the contours of his budget 
last week, requesting $10.2 billion for NSF, a 20 percent 
increase from last year's funding level. I think this is great 
and will help maintain U.S.' scientific leadership globally. 
Last year, the National Science Board released its Vision 2030 
report, including recommendations to increase the 
attractiveness of conducting academic research in the U.S. such 
as increased investment to fund a higher percentage of highly 
rated proposals.
    I have heard from scientists that there is just not enough 
early career funding programs to keep those interested in 
pursuing STEM careers. Oftentimes, those early STEM researchers 
have great ideas and proposals but don't have funding to pursue 
their agenda, so we often lose them to the private sector or 
altogether. Can you discuss how a 20 percent budget increase 
would help NSF fund more earlier career applicants?
    Mr. Panchanathan: Representative Meng, thank you for the 
question. While I cannot talk to the details right now because 
it doesn't come out until the President releases the budget, I 
can give you enough information in terms of how important early 
career researchers are to the scientific community, to 
academia, as you rightly point out, and to NSF.
    And so one of the things that we are doing is we are--as 
you know, the career awards are like the pinnacle of success 
for young career investigators. So one of the things that we 
have done, even in the COVID situation, as you know, the COVID 
situation has had tremendous impacts at so many levels, and 
let's pick the early career investigators who have just joined 
academia, and are having a lot of difficulty in terms of making 
sure that their ideas are going to be funded and fostered as 
they move into the future. So thanks to Congress for the $600 
million allocation that we got. And even before that, we 
prioritized at NSF to make sure that early career investigators 
are not put through any hardship in terms of taking their ideas 
and advancing their ideas so that they might be successful into 
the future.
    So our fundamental concept here is to see that we have to 
build the bedrock or the foundation of what NSF is. That is 
early career investigators. Only can we build this future on 
this bedrock of the foundation, so we are constantly seeing how 
we might increase the attention to early career investigator 
ideas, and see how we might be able to support them in times of 
difficulties like what we are facing in COVID right now, and 
also, to make sure that we are looking at disproportionately 
affected individuals, and disproportionately affected 
institutions. This is something that we are keeping close track 
on because some are more affected than others, and we are 
making sure that those folks get the support that is necessary 
to advance their ideas.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. I had another question about President 
Biden's action to combat anti-Asian American hate in our 
country. NSF was included in President Biden's order recently 
highlighting its critical research to prevent and address bias 
and xenophobia against Asian American communities. The 
announcement mentioned that NSF is currently supporting more 
than 100 grants across the country, totaling more than 33 
million in investments. These projects will help us reduce the 
frequency and severity of these violent attacks against Asian 
Americans. How can this subcommittee be helpful in supporting 
the President's initiatives through NSF? And as these projects 
are being completed, how is NSF helping the researchers spread 
their word publicly to help us combat hate?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you again. You are absolutely 
correct. So NSF is putting an intense focus in understanding 
the fundamentals of this problem, as well as tackling this 
problem head on, in terms of how we might be of support to the 
scientific community that has these ideas that help mitigate 
such challenges through education, to other kinds of mechanisms 
by which we can demonstrate that we are taking care of the 
vulnerable.
    This is a broad portfolio of things that we look at in 
terms of addressing racial inequity. And this is something that 
has clearly drawn the attention of NSF, and we have put a lot 
of effort and emphasis on this, Representative Meng, and I am 
happy to share the details with you. I know that in the short 
time we have, I may not be able to give you all the details, 
but we have a complete compilation of the project that you 
talked about. These projects, you know, investing over $30 
million, as you rightly you point out, these projects really 
address the core problem, and also what we might do to 
systemically avoid this in the future, or mitigate this in the 
future and what we might do to further be of help.
    So we will most certainly come to the committee. You are 
always very helpful, and we appreciate that. We are grateful 
for that, and we will come to you with specific things that you 
might need in the future. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Doctor.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
    At this point, the chair represents our friend from 
Mississippi, Representative Steve Palazzo.
    Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member Aderholt. Director Panchanathan, thank you for being 
here today. I am happy to see that the NSF is building the 
research vessel Gilbert R. Mason which will operated by the 
Gulf Caribbean Oceanographic Consortium led by my alma mater, 
the University of Southern Mississippi, and the Louisiana 
University's Marine Consortium. The entire Mississippi Gulf 
Coast Community looks forward to the Gilbert Mason coming 
online.
    I would also like to make an open-ended comment to you, 
Director, regarding NSF vessels and shipbuilding. I am a huge 
supporter of not only the Jones Act, but of American-made 
shipbuilding. When NSF considers contracts for barges like the 
current proposal for McMurdo Station and equipment, I just want 
to strongly encourage you to require that these things be built 
in the United States for the Buy American Act.
    Now, switching over, the FSCORE program has been 
instrumental in building infrastructure within Mississippi's 
research universities that has enabled scientific 
competitiveness, increased Mississippi's pipeline of science, 
engineering, and mathematics talent, and attracted external 
scientific expertise to Mississippi.
    One excellent example is the University of Southern 
Mississippi Center for Optoelectronic Materials and Devices. So 
my question: With the new administration, do you see any 
degradation in support for this program?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Representative Palazzo, thank you for the 
question. You know, as I was saying earlier, ideas and talent 
are all across our great Nation. And NSF's responsibility, as I 
see it, is to energize those ideas and talents so that our 
Nation will be competitive in every form, and this is the time 
to be competitive. And I don't see slowing down on that. In 
fact, I see intensification of the work that we need to do in 
every part of our Nation, in all aspects of the scientific 
community.
    So, I can only say, Mr. Palazzo, specific details of the 
project you talk about, I am happy to go back and look at them 
in great detail. I know that these are tremendous contributions 
that are being made for advancing our technological aspirations 
and also translating those technologies into industries of the 
future.
    [The information follows:]

    NSF's mandate is to promote science nationwide. Therefore, 
NSF remains committed to EPSCoR and to harnessing the talent 
for innovation that exists throughout the United States. Any 
individual, regardless of geographic or demographic background, 
might be inspired to pursue a career in science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research and innovation--
and the participation of people with different backgrounds 
strengthens the research enterprise by bringing varied 
perspectives to the table. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1862p-9 (2011) EPSCoR funding `'shall continue to increase 
as the National Science Foundation funding increases.''
    EPSCoR allows NSF to truly fulfil that duty, making sure 
that `'across the nation'' means across all of the nation, not 
just places fortunate enough to have extensive research 
infrastructure. EPSCoR enhances the research competitiveness of 
targeted jurisdictions (states, territories, commonwealth) by 
strengthening STEM capacity and capability. To achieve this 
goal, EPSCoR aims to stimulate research that is fully 
competitive in NSF disciplinary and multidisciplinary research 
programs. These activities promote and catalyze STEM workforce 
development, broadening participation, and economic growth. 
Developing research capacity in participating institutions of 
all types and serving varied student populations is an integral 
part of EPSCoR's vision and mission.
    Since Mississippi became eligible for NSF EPSCoR funding in 
1987 and across Presidential administrations, NSF EPSCoR has 
demonstrated a sustained investment in Mississippi's STEM 
activities. Total NSF EPSCoR funding to Mississippi since 1987 
is approximately $125 million with approximately $86 million 
coming through Research Infrastructure Improvement (RII) 
investments, and nearly $39 million through EPSCoR co-funding 
support. In addition, total NSF funding leveraged through 
EPSCoR co-funding is approximately $74 million. Furthermore, 
since FY 1987, NSF has awarded over 1,970 grants for total 
funding greater than $690 million. As of FY 2021, there are 
over 190 active NSF awards totaling $113 million in 
Mississippi. Among active awards, NSF EPSCoR has funded through 
its RII program or co-funded in conjunction with other NSF 
directorates at least 45 active awards in Mississippi. Examples 
of these activities in Mississippi include:
     RII Track-1 Mississippi EPSCoR: Center for 
Emergent Molecular Optoelectronics (CEMOs); \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=1757220&HistoricalAwards=false
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     RII Track-2 FEC: Emergent Polymer Sensing 
Technologies for Gulf Coast Water Quality Monitoring; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=1632825&HistoricalAwards=false
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     RII Track-2 FEC: Collaborative Research and 
Education on Synergized Transformational Solar Chemical Looping 
and Photo-Ultrasonic Renewable Biomass Refinery; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=1632899&HistoricalAwards=false
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     RII Track-4: Understanding Reaction Transport 
Coupling in High-Temperature Thermochemical Energy Storage 
Systems; \4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=2031701&HistoricalAwards=false
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     RII Track-4: Evolutionary Genomics of Multispecies 
Ecological Interactions, \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=1929136&HistoricalAwards=false

    So I know one of the things that I have been talking about 
is not only to train talent, as you said, but also assemble 
ecosystems of prosperity, of industry and entrepreneurship, 
around these excellent centers that you mentioned that we need 
to have everywhere. So I look forward to working with you in 
order to make sure that we unleash these amazing innovation 
centers everywhere.
    Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Doctor. I appreciate that, 
and I hope you will be committed, or can commit to as the NSF 
budget increases that the FSCORE program perhaps could 
proportionally increase as well, because it is a great program.
    Pivoting real quick, my favorite subject, China. I 
appreciate you mentioning that in your testimony, that we have 
to recognize, we can no longer ignore China. They are just not 
a place to buy cheap--you know, domestic or cheap goods, but 
they are an economic peer, and, perhaps, could be a military 
adversary in the future.
    When I first came to Congress, we had hearings, and we were 
talking about the technological gap, 25 years, 30 years. And 
since then, as you mentioned, they are either our equals, or 
they have exceeded us, and they didn't get to the top by 
spending. They got to the top by cheating and stealing, and 
now, they are at the top or beyond. They are spending, as the 
chairman mentioned and as you mentioned, at four times higher 
than America on research and technology.
    So I have seen, with some Federal agencies over the years 
that they have a cavalier attitude towards protecting America's 
national secrets, research and industry, paid for by the 
American people only to see it again improperly taken or stolen 
and then exported to foreign countries. Could you tell me what 
is the attitude and the culture at NSF for protecting and 
safeguarding American technology? And are there any recent 
incidents to where technology may have been stolen, and if so, 
who was behind that?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Representative Palazzo, at NSF, we 
believe in terms of the research that it gets enriched by the 
collaborative work that we do with like-minded partners across 
the globe. So, for us, like-minded partnership will share our 
values, like, who we can trust and who we can respect with 
integrity. They are working--so I have been developing these 
partnerships across the globe like U.K. and Ireland and Canada 
and others who believe in this work together can produce even 
greater things.
    But on the other side where we have more of the 
innovations, there are more translating into the industrial 
environment or applied research. Clearly, there are protection 
mechanisms that we fund, you know, in universities and so on. 
Having come from university where I led that particular 
portfolio, I can tell you that the intellectual property 
protection mechanisms are being put in place.
    So we, at NSF, took this step last year addressing this 
issue by creating a Chief Officer for Research Security 
Strategy and Policy who is working in collaboration with other 
agencies, particularly intelligence agencies, in ensuring that 
our policies and protocols and practices are put in place 
working closely with our Office of Inspector General, to make 
sure that we are ensuring that these kinds of unethical 
practices are not something that they can get away with.
    So I think we are working very hard to do that at the same 
time, but that is in partnership with the Federal Government, 
as you can imagine. So NSF is doing everything to see how we 
can have fundamental research prosper through global 
partnerships with like-minded partners, as well as protecting 
mechanisms.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Director.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
    The chair recognizes Florida's own Charlie Crist. 
Representative Crist, take it away.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, 
Director, thank you for joining us today. It is an honor to 
have you.
    In your testimony, you highlight some of the great work 
that the NSF has done to help combat COVID-19, including 
supporting research that helps us better understand how the 
virus spread and technology to attract the outbreaks. Can you 
discuss what lessons the National Science Foundation has 
learned over the last year, in leveraging research and 
development during this crisis to help bring the virus under 
control?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So thank you for the question. You know, 
at NSF, thanks to the CARES Act investments, we have launched 
over 1,000 projects in a rapid scale to address this pandemic. 
As you know, the decades of investment that NSF has made in 
basic bio research, in engineering research, in computing 
research is essentially now being contextualized so we can find 
these rapid solution pathways that we are working on and 
understand the virus, understand the spreading mechanism as 
well as finding solutions that can be translated rapidly so 
that we might address the problem at hand.
    So, in terms of COVID-19 projects that we have funded 
through the CARES Act, not only the CARES Act funding directly 
has been applied, but NSF has invested additionally to the tune 
of $200 million, unleashing these 1,000-plus projects, in order 
that we might address this COVID pandemic.
    At the same time, we are also using, as I said, the $600 
million investment that you all kindly made in NSF to see how 
we can help the community that is out there that is suffering 
because of COVID-19 impacts, the scientific community, so that 
the ideas that are there. And most of the scientific community 
being embedded in the COVID-19 pandemic, are all trying to see 
what they can do to contribute even more in terms of addressing 
this pandemic proactively rather than reactively, how might we 
be more resilient as a Nation to these kinds of activities, not 
only the pandemic, to other kinds of things that you would 
relate to very well, Representative, as natural hazards, you 
know, how might we prepare ourselves proactively rather than 
reactively. And so this resilient portfolio is something that 
we are putting forth at NSF to see how we can address this.
    So I just want to make sure that we are trying to do this 
in a comprehensive way so that this moment that we have taken, 
we have learned a lot from this moment. We are learning a lot 
from this moment, including that there is sort of a light that 
is there in this that we can look up to is that we know that 
remote learning is possible now with high quality. Yes, there 
are challenges.
    So how might we then use the same remote learning capacity 
to now include talent from across our Nation, rural and urban 
areas? So these are kinds of things that COVID-19 is teaching 
us to do better, to be more resilient, to be more inclusive, 
and also to be more proactive rather than reactive.
    Mr. Crist. Great. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
    I am curious, too. Has the NSF taken the innovative steps 
to look at these variants that we are now experiencing? As a 
Floridian, you know, we are one of the top States in variants, 
and I think they suspect primarily from the United Kingdom. But 
I am curious if you have had the opportunity at NSF to delve 
into some research as to these variants, what causes them, and 
what we can expect in the future from them?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Crist. We rely 
on the scientific community, which is constantly looking and 
innovating and finding solutions, or proposing to find 
solutions to us. We welcome those kinds of proposals. Clearly, 
these are in the mix of thinking in terms of what the 
scientific community can and should do as we move into the 
future.
    So NSF has engagement with the scientific community, the 
key players in this. And if I will repeat that, we are clearly 
tuned in, if that is what you are asking us, tuned in to what 
is going on so that we might serve better, as I said, much more 
proactively, to understand these things, how these things 
mutate and, therefore, cause, you know, increasing problems 
like what you are seeing today.
    Mr. Crist. To follow up on that, and I can't see the 
countdown clock, Mr. Chairman, so let me know when I am running 
low, if you don't mind, and----
    Mr. Cartwright. You have 1 minute, Charlie.
    Mr. Crist. I am sorry?
    Mr. Cartwright. You have 1 minute remaining.
    Mr. Crist. Great.
    On the variants still, now, my understanding just reading 
news accounts is that the variants are more deadly and also 
more infectious. And, so, my question, I think, is twofold: Do 
the current vaccines have the capacity to stop them as well as 
they do the original COVID-19 virus? And on top of that, what 
should we expect in terms of other variants developing from the 
virus?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Yeah. This is something that I probably 
am not able to answer at this point in time because it is still 
being investigated right now. And much of this lies in the 
domains of the National Institutes of Health, the researchers 
that are working really hard on this, CDC and others. So I 
would say that is exactly the thing that is being investigated 
is how might we find how solidly are we protected right now, 
and how can we protect ourselves better into the future?
    Mr. Crist. I appreciate that. Thank you. If there are 
experts within the Science Foundation, if you could forward 
those to the committee, that would be greatly appreciated. 
Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information follows:]

    The question of what new viral variants may arise and how 
effective current vaccines will be against them is an active 
area of research in the scientific community. While some of the 
researchers engaged in those efforts may be supported by NSF, 
it is primarily in the domain of NIH, CDC, and other agencies 
to secure answers to assess immediate risk and to mitigate 
impacts of these variants on public health. There are program 
officers at NSF who are scientific experts in viral biology 
generally, but they are not experts on this particular question 
of coronavirus variants and vaccine effectiveness against them.

    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Crist.
    The chair recognizes Representative Ben Cline of Virginia 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and 
Ranking Member Aderholt holding today's hearing. Ensuring that 
America continues to lead in science and technology is critical 
to our continued economic success. The United States has always 
been on the cutting edge of research and development, so it is 
vital that we continue to innovate here in America and promote 
policies that enable the private sector to flourish from 
breakthrough discoveries at our research facilities and 
universities. At the same time, we must also ensure taxpayer 
dollars are being used effectively and transparently to 
maintain the trust of citizens in government-funded research.
    I want to thank our witness for joining us. I am learning a 
lot about the NSF, the work that you do here in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, many of our major universities. I 
have noted the request for increase in your budget from $1.7 
billion increase to $10.2 billion from its current level, which 
is also an all-time high, I believe.
    So I wanted to see how you were doing with expenditure of 
the taxpayers' funds. I went on your website to look at some of 
your audits. I commend you for the number of audits that you 
do. You seem to go through all of your grant recipients on a 
regular basis over the past several years. I did note one that 
I just wanted to kind of follow up on. It is an OIG report from 
May of last year about the vehicle fleet that you all have, and 
how you all keep track of the vehicles that are titled at your 
major facilities and at grant recipients' facilities.
    A number of suggestions were made at the conclusion of this 
OIG report, and, again, this was in the middle of the pandemic 
in May of last year. They recommended three things: that you 
conduct a complete vehicle allocation methodology for all 
vehicles in your motor vehicle fleet; you develop internal 
guidance to insure that NSF regularly establishes and documents 
a vehicle allocation methodology; and you complete standard 
operating guidance for NSF staff.
    Can you tell me, with certainty, that you have completed 
those three recommendations from the OIG and that you have a 
firm grasp now on your vehicle fleet and how many are in that 
fleet?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Representative Cline, thank you so much 
for your question. I can tell you that we take these audits 
very seriously. We work with the OIG in a partnership mode, and 
we meet with the OIG regularly, and we are always listening to 
their suggestions, their recommendations, and we work closely 
in partnership with them. And we also follow up on the things 
that they bring up and highlight.
    So I can tell you that this is something that we most 
certainly are taking the necessary steps from the NSF 
perspective.
    The specific things we talked about, I will be happy to 
follow up with you on this, you know, in terms of what we are 
doing and what recommendations we have taken and how we are 
following up. I will be happy to do that with you and your 
office. I can tell you that this is something I take personally 
very seriously, and OIG and I have a strong partnership.
    Mr. Cline. Well, I appreciate that. And I was hoping you 
would just say yes, that an OIG report with recommendations 
about a year old have been implemented. I see in fiscal year 
2017, one major facility recipient did not report 16 federally 
owned vehicles it purchased with award funds from the office, 
16 vehicles purchased with taxpayer dollars that they didn't 
report. That is a good bit of funds that should have been 
reported.
    In that 2017 report, it said there were 560 vehicles 
purchased with award funds, 500 at major facilities. It just 
seems like there is some money not being kept track of within 
NSF, and I would think it would be a priority for you guys to 
get a handle on something as widespread as vehicle purchasing, 
so that you can come to us and say with certainty, we manage 
our funds well, and we need that 20 percent increase.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Absolutely, Representative Cline. I tell 
you right now. We manage our funds well. And, yes, there are 
isolated incidents like this that we look at OIG's reports and 
immediately act on them. We don't delay action on them. I can 
assure you that, because that is what I meant by saying the 
specific partnership with OIG is to make sure that we are 
listening to them, we are acting on them, and absolutely we act 
on them right away.
    The specific details, I thought it might be best that if I 
follow up with you and the office and give you the details of 
how we have followed up. It is not that we have not followed 
up. We follow up every one of them, and make sure that we are 
acting right and that the taxpayer funds are being used most 
wisely and appropriately. And you can rest assured that we will 
never waiver from that, and we are constantly seeing how we can 
do better.
    Mr. Cline. Excellent. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    The chair recognizes Representative Ed Case of Hawaii.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Dr. Panchanathan, it 
is a pleasure to have you with us. First of all, I want to 
start by expressing my own appreciation to the National Science 
Foundation for your investments in world class research and 
development in Hawaii, ranging from astronomy with the Gemini 
Observatory, the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope, the world's 
most powerful solar observatory, and the potential Thirty Meter 
telescope, of course, which is the largest and most powerful 
telescope on the horizon anywhere in the world which is under 
consideration as we speak along with your investments in 
atmospheric research, oceanographic research, and other R&D 
which is specific to my part of the world, so I appreciate 
that.
    I do want to follow up on some of the questions that my 
colleagues have posed along the lines of the safety and 
security of our national research and development, especially, 
and I will say with respect to China because the questions were 
raised with you as to China's investment in R&D and compare to 
it our own. But as I think we can all know and acknowledge and 
realize at this point, from China's perspective, it is a lot 
better for us to do the R&D and then for them to take it as 
opposed to them, you know, spending on it themselves. And they 
are busy doing that and have been doing it for some time, and 
there is no sense in anybody denying that anymore. It is a 
reality. And so the question to you, and many of my colleagues 
got at this, but number one, specifically, what is the National 
Science Foundation doing to assure that doesn't happen?
    I know that you do have a series of, and have had a series 
of internal investigations that get at, basically, foreign 
penetration of R&D through grants, and, again, singling out 
China as one of those foreign agents from intellectual property 
theft, as well as basic counterespionage in some cases.
    Your numbers seem to be lower than other Federal R&D 
organizations such as the NIH which has been plagued in this 
area. But what specifically is the status of your current 
investigation? And just as important, do you feel that you have 
the resources, the raw resources, to counter this within the 
NSF, you know, money-wise, you know, personnel-wise and 
otherwise?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you for the question again. I just 
want to put out a clarification because the China numbers 
talked about, and I presented these numbers. The clarification 
I want to present is that China is not spending four times the 
U.S., but the annual rate of investment growth of China's 
progress is 17 percent growth rate, annual growth rate, whereas 
ours is a 4 percent growth rate, so that is where the four 
times comes about. It is the growth rate rather than the actual 
expenditure. I just want to clarify that.
    Mr. Case. Yes. Understood. And they are probably spending 
four times at an accelerated rate of growth on taking our 
research and development also. So the same question back to 
you. How are you doing? What do you need?
    Mr. Panchanathan. What we are trying to do is this balance 
of trying to make sure that the fundamental research is 
prospering, and also protecting what needs to be protected, as 
you rightly said. Our taxpayer investments have to be used 
wisely in terms of protecting those things and not let them get 
away with taking those things that we should be protecting in 
the first place. And that is why we developed this Chief 
Officer for Research Security and Strategy and Policy, and we 
have equipped that office with people, and we are constantly 
looking and evaluating at how many more resources would be 
required. But as you know, at NSF, our partnership is with the 
Office of Inspector General, who is a strong partner in getting 
this done with us. And, therefore, it is not that NSF does it 
alone. NSF does it with the OIG to make sure that we are 
ensuring that what needs to be protected gets protected.
    But in addition to that, there is one more dimension. Since 
the work that we fund happens in institutions like academic 
institutions, we want to make sure that those institutions are 
also partners in ensuring that we are collectively working 
together and putting in place policies and procedures and 
practices that ensures that the protection happens at every 
level. And, so, that is something we are working very, very 
closely.
    Lastly, we have been working very closely, as I said, with 
the intelligence agencies, as well as our other counterpart 
agencies, and learning from each other and seeing how we might 
do better at NSF every day. And this is an evolving problem, as 
you know. It is a growing problem as some of us see it also, so 
we are trying to see how we might make sure the best practices 
are learned from each other, put in place by putting in a 
ecosystem context rather than just NSF by itself.
    Mr. Case. Do you have enough resources to do what you think 
we need to do with your agency, with your Inspector General, 
with the research institutions that you work with to adequately 
protect our R&D? Do you have enough? Just quickly, because I am 
out of time.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Yeah, no. In this context, I will 
directly answer your question. This is why the Fiscal Year 2022 
budget increase is very, very critical. So part of the 
investment that they are looking at as a group of this 
enterprise also in terms of the research security aspects of 
it, so we are going to be directing resources to ensure that we 
have enough resources in place for the problem that is it 
evolving and growing, as I mentioned to you. Absolutely. I need 
more resources as part of the fiscal year 2022 plan.
    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, Dr. Panchanathan, you are doing a 
fine job fielding all these questions, but we are not done with 
you yet.
    At this point, the chair yields to Representative Mike 
Garcia of California for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 
Panchanathan, for this testimony. This is obviously very 
important. A comment, maybe, and you are welcome to give me 
your feedback on it and then a couple of questions within the 5 
minutes here, so, hopefully, good, succinct answers if you can.
    But I get a little leery of round numbers in these drills. 
When something goes up, you know, 10 percent or 20 percent, it 
would be an amazing coincidence that that is actually the right 
number, right, whether it is too high or too low. So I would 
just say that from a fidelity-and-resolution perspective on 
what this money is doing, more detail is better. More 
substantiation for the individual line items is appropriate. 
And especially, given our Nation's debt, you know, my visceral 
reaction is I am not a big fan of seeing Federal programs go up 
when our Nation's debt is what it is at. That is not to say 
that, you know, we are targeting this budget, per se, or I am 
targeting it or questioning it. I just think seeing the detail 
underneath that 20 percent is critical as we move forward. I 
know that is not the forum today for this.
    I will ask, though, specifically about cybersecurity. This 
is one of the biggest threats to our Nation right now. We 
talked about, you know, protecting our research from China. 
Those discussions we just had are a byproduct of an overarching 
program focused on cyber, and I am reluctant to say 
cybersecurity, because it is not just the defensive side of 
this, it is also the offensive side for multiple purposes. I 
don't see the word ``cyber'' or ``cybersecurity'' really too 
often.
    So that is question one. What can we do under the NSF? Or 
what are you doing to help develop the cyber techniques and 
algorithms to not only protect us, but also keep us on the 
leading edge of capabilities in the cyber domain.
    The second question I have is relative to advance 
manufacturing techniques relative to China, especially. I don't 
see that in here as well. We are really dependent and entirely 
too dependent on China right now for things like our CNC 
machinery, our four-axis, five-axis equipment that helps our 
manufacturing industries build things in our country. When we 
need those machines, we buy them from China right now. We don't 
know how to build or develop those machines organically.
    And advanced manufacturing techniques are advancing very 
quickly, and I think we, as a Nation, are being outpaced by, 
especially China and our European peers.
    So cyber capabilities and advance manufacturing 
capabilities, if you can touch on those relative to the 
directorates you have laid out in the budget that you have 
requested?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative, for the 
question. And, first, I want to say that the investment in NSF, 
you can think of it as a return on investment that is hugely 
impacting the Nation as we move forward. We have had tremendous 
ROI from NSF investments, and I am happy to share that with you 
at a different time, because this is an investment that is well 
worth the taxpayers' investments for what they are being able 
to generate. I mean, like you--one small example, and I move 
on. If you look at the digital libraries project in the mid-
1990s that we funded, the annual report of the project simply 
said, we founded Google. That was the report. And, so, we all 
know where Google took us. And so that is what I mean by real 
return on investment. There are many examples.
    [The information follows:]

    As mentioned in testimony, over the past seven decades, NSF 
has funded research, researchers, innovations and innovators, 
and world-class infrastructure that has garnered incredible 
benefits to the nation. The internet, 3D printing, the economic 
theory underpinning spectrum auctioning and kidney exchanges, 
and even the polymerase chain reaction testing technique that 
has been critical in the fight against COVID-19 are all 
examples of the outcomes and benefits of NSF investments. Many 
of the technologies and industries that are the focus of 
national conversations around competitiveness today--artificial 
intelligence, quantum information science, advanced 
manufacturing, advanced wireless and biotechnology, to name a 
few--are rooted in sustained NSF support for research at the 
frontiers of science and engineering.
    To learn even more about the impact of NSF's investments, 
plesae see NSF's Brought to You By write-ups.\1\ These essays 
organize the impacts of NSF investment by category: national 
security, Antarctic research, disaster preparedness and 
response, science learning, facilities, ocean discoveries, and 
irreplaceable innovations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/btyb/index.jsp

    Now, let me dive into the cyber question that you asked. 
Being a computer scientist myself, I can tell you. The cyber 
technologies, the ideas, the science, and the practices, all of 
this is influenced because of several decades of investment 
that NSF has been making in computing and informatics and other 
areas. So I just want to put that out there because, you know, 
it is not new. We have been working on this for a while now. 
There is tremendous intensification on cyber-related 
technologies and cyber-related ideas. There are many, many 
programs to name, but we have to look at--for example, one 
thing I would say is an interdisciplinary program on secure and 
trustworthy cyberspace, which is a powerful program of not only 
taking what we know in terms of technology, but how people 
behave. You will agree that the social behavior of science as 
part of the technology building is exceedingly important to us 
to guard ourselves as we move into the future.
    Now, the other part is very important, you would agree 
also, is we need to train people who are sensitized to cyber 
principles and cyber technologies and cyber ideas. And so, we 
have got a cyber core program which we have launched, and this 
is training the next generation of cyber professionals. And 
this is a service kind of a program where we fund the people, 
and they serve a particular number of years, because they have 
been funded through this program.
    So this is a fantastic program and in partnership with 
industry which I am a big believer in. We can do even better 
things to make sure that we are protecting ourselves. So that 
is the cyber response very quickly.
    The last thing on advance manufacturing. Our engineering 
directorate has launched several advanced manufacturing 
programs over the decades. Today, 3D printing is what we 
invested in the 1970s which made additive manufacturing 
possible, and we are intensely focused on advance manufacturing 
centers in our engineering directorate, of course, in 
partnership with commerce and others. We are very, very 
committed to that. You are absolutely correct. We need to be a 
lot more independent----
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
    Mr. Panchanathan. In terms of how we look at this as a 
Nation, so thank you so much.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate those 
highlights.
    I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thanks, Mike.
    The chair, at this point, recognizes Representative Dutch 
Ruppersberger from northern Maryland.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
again, Dr. Panchanathan, and we appreciate the information that 
you are giving us.
    I want to talk to you about China, which I know Mike 
Gallagher has raised the issue, Palazzo has, and also, as it 
relates to STEM competitiveness. I spent 12 years on the 
intelligence committee, and I actually do represent NSA, so I 
have put a lot of my focus on the issue of cybersecurity and 
those issues.
    We face a lot of threats as it relates to China. China is 
our strategic and economic competitor. China's President Xi has 
a plan to push past everyone into the next set of emerging 
technologies like AI, quantum space. China pushes out great 
engineers. And I know our quality of engineers is better, but 
China is right there.
    Now, we spend about $500 million on STEM programs to create 
a STEM workforce. Can you give me an assessment of how are we 
doing in that area? One area of concern that I have which has 
been echoed by employers in my district; how do we bridge 
research education with the day-to-day cybersecurity matters 
that exist in the world today, and because there seems to be a 
disconnect between academia, research, and real-life execution.
    Now, given the shortage of cybersecurity professionals, the 
focus on building a pipeline of future talent, starting in 
grade school which is, in my opinion, very important, and the 
known opportunities that exist to be more inclusive of diverse, 
underserved populations, what opportunities or investments 
would NSF prioritize to address cybersecurity workforce 
shortages that exist today, and might also look at increasing 
the number of women and minorities in that field? Now, are we 
graduating enough workforce to meet the current and future 
needs for the government and private sector?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much, Representative 
Ruppersberger. I will tell you that it is--I call it the 
``missing millions'', the talent you talk about. There is 
tremendous talent in our Nation that needs to be brought to 
life, inspired, and motivated all across our Nation. So, we 
need to do everything to make sure that the domestic talent is 
at full force, at full scale for us to compete against 
countries like China. We need to do a lot more than what we 
have been doing so far.
    And when you talk about investments we have been making in 
STEM, it is at various levels, Representative. First, how do we 
motivate these K-12 students to be inspired by STEM, which 
means that you need teachers who are inspired by STEM, who 
teach STEM. And therefore right there, there are programs at 
NSF which are inspiring new teachers who are much more oriented 
towards STEM, and that they can, in turn, inspire some talented 
(ph) STEM kids. At the K-12 level, we have several programs 
that ensures that STEM talent, and the pipeline of STEM talent 
is being doubled up at a higher level specific to the kinds of 
demographic that you talk about, you know, girls, 
underrepresented minorities, feeling that STEM is for them as 
much as for anybody else. And that is why we are doing a number 
of things in terms of programs addressing that.
    Then to the next level, these are things that I look at as 
pathways. Some of them may go into a community college pathway. 
Some of them may go into an internship program. Some of them 
may go into a 4-year degree program, or a university program. 
We want to have all the pathways ready for STEM talent to 
exercise itself. And, therefore, we have the workforce that we 
talk about at speed and at scale.
    And specific to the examples that you pointed out, in your 
own district, for example, we have Townsend University as a 
national center for excellence in cyber operations as just one 
example. That is in partnership with a number of entities. It 
is managed by NSA with six Federal partners that includes NSF. 
And NSF Cyber Core program which is the scholarship program 
that I talked about for service has provided Townsend with $2.5 
million to prepare a cybersecurity workforce of the future as 
one example. And, also, we have in the case of the National 
Cyberwatch Center, Prince George's Community College, again, 
investment in terms of ensuring.
    So NSF is working, is clearly identifying the problem that 
you are talking about, Representative, but we are acting on it. 
We are ensuring that they are investing in programs not just 
only in research universities, but as you say, across the 
geography in community colleges and other places to make sure 
the talent everywhere is shared to get ready for the future 
that you talk about.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thanks, Dutch.
    The chair recognizes for 5 minutes Representative Brenda 
Lawrence of Michigan.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Hello, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for 
this opportunity. I wanted to talk to you today about diversity 
and the STEM workforce. Recently, President Biden announced his 
administration's American Jobs Plan, including an effort to 
invest heavily in workforce development through registered 
apprenticeships and strengthening the pipeline for more women 
and people of color to access these opportunities.
    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there has been an 
increase in participation in STEM fields among women. We went 
from 8 percent in 1970, to 27 percent in 2019. However, you 
know, that is a far, far cry from the 48 percent of women in 
the labor workforce. Women make up more than half of the 
workforce in social sciences and math, but remain substantially 
unrepresented in engineering and computer occupations which 
make up over 80 percent of all of the STEM fields.
    Can you explain to me how NSF is working to expand access 
to STEM careers, and what steps are you taking to ensure the 
participation of women in these fields? And I ask this question 
serving as the co-chair of the Women's Caucus and as a vice 
chair of the Black Caucus. And I believe strongly that in order 
for America to move forward, we must have all hands on deck, 
and we must utilize all of our workforce. So I will yield back 
for your response, and thank you so much for this opportunity.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Representative Lawrence, I cannot agree 
with you more. So, you know, having been a computer science 
unit head, and this is over 3 years ago, the first thing I said 
is how do we inspire more women, more girls, and more 
minorities to think about computing and engineering as their 
career pathway? And for that, I go back to the previous answer 
that I gave is we need role models. We need inspiration that we 
need to build, and NSF is addressing that at so many levels.
    Let me walk through some of them. We have the NSF Advance 
Program, which is focused precisely on how do we get more 
representation, more gender diversity. We have the NSF Includes 
Program. Through all of these programs, what we are trying to 
do is ensure that we have more faculty members who are also 
supportive for women so that they become the role models for 
nurturing more of the talent. So high school teachers as well 
as faculty members in universities that people look up to and 
say, ``I can be that.'' So we are trying to generate this, set 
of programs that allows for these kinds of inspirations to 
happen.
    At the same time, we are also targeting programs 
specifically to ensure that supplements to awards are made in 
order that we might then target those for including talent from 
a broad demographic, including gender diversity. So we are 
working hard on those programs also at NSF to make sure that we 
are, as you said, this growth from 8 to 27 percent, while it is 
nice to see a growth, but it is nowhere near enough, and so we 
are actively looking at how we can do more through a variety of 
programs.
    The next thing we are looking at is how industry 
internships make possible people feeling more enthusiastic 
about wanting to look at potential career pathways for 
themselves.
    So, these are ways in which we are trying to see how we can 
move people of all backgrounds to be successful in a STEM 
career. And as I said, I used the word ``pathways'' in the 
previous response. We also need to make sure that sometimes 
they may not necessarily enter a university right away. They 
enter the community college system, and we want to make sure 
that the community college pathway also is seamless in terms of 
getting to a university pathway.
    So we are seeing how we might make possible programs that 
energize these kinds of pathways so that talent from all 
perspectives are aggregated in order that we meet the demands 
of our Nation and the talent that our Nation truly has, which 
has to be manifested.
    So we are deeply committed at NSF. I can tell you from my 
own personal background and experiences and watching the first 
time, I can assure you that this needs to be done with a lot 
more urgency--I always use these words in my vision--
strengthening at speed and scale. This is the moment for us as 
a Nation to do it for precisely the kind of things that you are 
talking about as well as the other situation that we are in, 
which is facing this global competition that we need to be far 
ahead of.
    I always say, we should never be looking behind to check 
our competition. We should be so far ahead that we never have 
to check our competition, and that is what we need to do at 
this point in time.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Doctor, do you know your current statistics 
on the amount of women who are currently in your department or 
the amount of minorities?
    Mr. Panchanathan. I can tell you that it is a significant 
number, and I am so pleased to say that NSF is a very, very 
inclusive environment. I can get the exact numbers to you, and 
you will be pleased to see the diversity at NSF. I came 
recently to NSF, as you know, and I looked at the diversity 
profile of NSF. It is really phenomenal. But I will tell you 
one thing: As soon as I arrived at NSF, 2 weeks later, I 
launched the Racial Equity Task Force. I said, I want to 
understand any barriers, any barriers for any talent to 
progress through, and achieve their aspirations and goals.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6187A.046
    
    So I am delighted to report that our Racial Equity Task 
Force led by our leader of the Office of Diversity and 
Inclusion, Rhonda Davis, is doing an amazing job in terms of 
identifying potential barriers to achievement and 
accomplishment. And under my leadership, you can rest assured 
that that will be a principal focus for me.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much.
    And I yield back, Madam--I mean, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mrs. Lawrence.
    And the chair at this point recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland, Representative David Trone, for 5 minutes. You are 
muted, Mr. Trone.
    Mr. Trone. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you, Doctor, for all your help today.
    Broadband. The President, in the New Jobs, American Jobs 
Plan, proposes $50 billion over 8 years for the new Directorate 
of Technology at the NSF. We know the key on economic 
development is robust, future-proofed, internet infrastructure. 
Recently, the University of Maryland, Baltimore County received 
a rapid grant from NSF to increase high-speed wireless. Can you 
speak to some of the other research investments that you have 
done related to broadband and internet access that NSF 
supported, and also how you see NSF's role in expanding 
broadband infrastructure and increasing high-speed internet 
accessibility?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Trone. That is 
a very important point that you are making here, is how do we 
expand access? By having the infrastructure that enables the 
access. What we have learned from COVID, as you know, as I was 
mentioning earlier in my remarks, is that when you have access, 
then you can provide the learning opportunities for people 
anywhere and everywhere. You can even provide job opportunities 
for people anywhere and everywhere.
    When we talk about addressing the needs of the rural areas 
and urban areas and across the geography of the Nation, this is 
a very, very important infrastructure element. I am pleased to 
report that NSF has been focused on this from a research 
perspective, also from the point-of-implementation perspective. 
Just last week, I announced a project Orcom grants, and these 
are the mechanisms that we worked with, for example, in this 
case, in partnership with Smith Futures. And, we launched 
several projects in terms of ensuring broadband accessibility 
for a variety of communities that are not served as well right 
now.
    We have also been working on a partnership with industry, 
in a consortium partnership with industry to a program called 
Power. The Power program is also providing greater broadband 
access, and they are taking templates of those pilots so that 
we might learn from that so that we might do it all across the 
Nation.
    So NSF is very, very active, not only in terms of what we 
are investing, but we are trying to partner with industry, 
partner with other entities that have agreed to co-invest with 
us so that we can do even more than we are able to do alone. 
Clearly, the President's budget, the President's new budget and 
increases will play a significant role as well as the American 
Jobs Plan, and the investments being proposed will be--they 
will make a big difference in terms of how we have 
connectivity.
    And it is through connectivity that we are able to ensure 
equity, equity and participation by all, and prosperity 
everywhere. And this is something that we are deeply committed 
to at NSF.
    Mr. Trone. I got it. Internet. Rural. We talked a minute 
ago. We have got 9 million students in rural America, 20 
percent of all of our kids in rural. We need that bigger STEM 
skilled workforce. How do we get these investments to help 
drive it in rural America, STEM jobs, et cetera?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So there are many initiatives on rural 
STEM, specifically at NSF. I will tell you, for example, our 
Education and Human Resources Directorate currently has 350 
active awards and 21 programs precisely addressing rural STEM, 
because I agree with you that we need the talent in rural areas 
to be energized and also become entrepreneurs of the future 
where there is regional economic development, not the talent 
goes somewhere else. The talent is right there. And so, we are 
trying to see how, and I am very excited about the American 
Jobs Plan investment, because we want to create these 
innovation accelerators, innovation centers everywhere, in all 
parts of the Nation which takes the local expertise. For 
example, it could be agriculture, or it could be, you know, in 
the Gulf region, in native shipbuilding. It can be various 
topical areas across the Nation, but we can actually build 
centers of excellence where jobs are created, training happens, 
inspirational STEM time happens everywhere, and therefore, we 
can ensure a robust economy as we move forward.
    Mr. Trone. Let's quickly jump to opioids. COVID and opioid 
deaths devastating communities. It is all hands on deck for the 
opioid epidemic that is followed and driven by COVID. NSF's 
Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences has done a 
tremendous amount of work supporting research, pain management, 
and neuroscience of addiction. Can you share with us some of 
the findings of that research?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So, thank you again for the question. As 
you directly said, NSF supports various projects, many, many 
projects which address this epidemic that we are facing right 
now. As you said, we are looking at addiction. We are also 
looking at the role of illicit supply networks in allowing 
access to opioids. We are looking also at projects that address 
the secondary effects of the opioid crisis on families. We are 
also looking at how the user technology can combat the 
epidemic, and also nonaddictive therapies for pain which is 
what gets people in trouble in the first place.
    So with NSF support, the work continues. The researchers 
are working across various directorates, including our 
fantastic Social Behavioral Sciences Directorate, how to use 
new data set approaches to incorporate many types of data, 
analytic and visualization techniques that explore the complex 
web of biological, behavioral, and social factors that 
contribute to addiction.
    So we are also looking at new technologies that reduce 
cravings, target addiction-riddled brain circuits, for example, 
and prevent opioid toxicity. And these are the kinds of things 
that are in development right now by funded projects from NSF. 
So there is a network of science techniques being used to track 
opioid supplies, informing police tactics to interrupt supply 
chains.
    So taken together, I can tell you that NSF has got a lot 
more work to do and make a lot more work possible. But taken 
together, these activities promise to deepen our understanding 
of the causes, the pathways, the diagnosis, prognosis, and 
treatment of addiction.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, David.
    Dr. Panchanathan, we are going to go to a second round of 
questioning, and I am going to recognize myself for another 5 
minutes of questions.
    The first thing I want to do is discuss COVID-19. You have 
been questioned a fair amount about that. One question you 
haven't had is how is the scientific research community itself 
handling COVID-19? Have you been monitoring how all the men and 
women who are actually doing this research are holding up?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Absolutely, Chairman. We have been 
closely monitoring the scientific community and seeing what the 
impacts are. And I can tell you, the impacts are mostly at what 
we call the transition points. An undergraduate student, for 
example, is about to graduate who is engaged in a research 
project, wanting to finish their undergraduate research 
project, and, therefore, go and get a job in industry; a 
graduate student who is finishing their Ph.D. Program and 
trying to get a job in industry or academia; an early career 
researcher or a post doc fellow is trying to get a job, and 
then being held back because of the inability to be able to 
complete their work in a comprehensive way; an early career 
researcher is not being able to launch into their career as 
fast as they would normally do. And, of course, the mid-career 
researchers and others. The entire scientific system has been 
affected, and so, we are keeping a close track on that.
    And then on top of that, as you know, Chairman, it has also 
affected disproportionately certain researchers and certain 
scientists. For example, women who are caring for their 
families, and caring for elders, and at the same time, trying 
to do all the things that they have to do at home, managing 
both at work and family responsibilities. So this has made it 
very, very difficult, and so, we are keeping a tab on every one 
of those. Our program officers are talking to every individual 
and providing help and relief, if possible. We are grateful for 
the $700 million investment, grateful to all of you, and that 
is made a huge difference.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that. Well, Dr. Panchanathan, 
I must tell you that it is a particular joy of mine to chair 
this subcommittee, because I have an abiding faith and belief 
in the power of American ingenuity and its ability to solve 
basically every major problem that we have in this country, and 
maybe in this world.
    We need to power America by utilizing domestic resources in 
an environmentally responsible manner, finding newer, better 
uses for older forms of energy, production, and investing in 
sustainable, clean energy technologies to reduce our greenhouse 
gas emissions. The question is, as compared to the fiscal year 
2021 investment of $850 million, how will a $1.2 billion 
investment for climate science impact our ability to fight 
climate change?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So, clearly, the $1.2 billion investment, 
and again, thanks to the President's proposal for fiscal year 
2022 which is exceedingly important for us to understand. As 
you know, NSF has been working in the area of climate modeling 
and other climate science activities for several decades, 
climate-related activities. So we are now strengthening at 
speed and scale, as I often say, in this aspect also.
    So here we are, trying to see how we can expand the work 
that we are doing under the USGCRP, as well as clean energy 
technology portfolios. But I want to say that it is not just 
limited to only that. We are also looking at climate from a 
comprehensive perspective. Every directorate at NSF, whether it 
is computing directorate, or engineering directorate, biology 
directorate, GEO directorate, social behavioral center 
directorate, education and human resources directorate, and 
mathematical and physics directorate. Every one of them are 
focused on this important problem of how we can look at 
mitigation, adaptation, resilience, and how might we be more 
effective and be much more proactive in our responses.
    I will give you one example, if I may. When we launched the 
AI Institutes last year, one of the AI Institutes was on 
climate and weather at the University of Oklahoma, 
understanding weather, and how might we then be much more 
proactive rather than reactive, how to be much more 
sophisticated in modeling, how to be much more sophisticated in 
all our endeavors. So I am very happy to say that NSF is in the 
frontiers of how to do this, but we are also doing it in 
partnership with agencies like NOAA, NASA, the Department of 
Energy, and others. And it takes an all-of-government approach, 
as you know, to do this, and we are very happy to be a 
significant part of that.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, Dr. Panchanathan, you mentioned 
climate modeling just now. And, of course, climate modeling and 
weather forecasting can help prepare our communities for the 
impacts of climate change. What investments is NSF making in 
these fields? And how are you collaborating with other entities 
working in the area? And do you feel we are providing the data 
and information that leaders need to make informed decisions?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Absolutely. You know that our long-term 
support of the National Center for Small Business NCOB is a 
huge part of how we look at modeling for mitigation purposes, 
modeling for understanding so that we might prepare better. 
And, so, we are working, as I said in an earlier response, in 
partnership with other agencies like NOAA and NASA, and the 
Department of Energy and others, so that we might be prepared, 
much more ready and prepared, for any eventualities that 
happen.
    And we are constantly innovating. We are constantly looking 
at new ways of doing things, a fusion of disciplines rather 
just than a discipline approach only. We are, right now, 
thinking about an impact earth system modeling effort and how 
might we look at planting modeling in order to be able to 
understand the complex efforts, the complex influences much 
better to be able to prepare better for the future.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Doctor.
    The chair recognizes Ranking Member Aderholt for another 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to refer to the lessons learned from the Recovery 
Act of 2009. The 2009 Recovery Act stimulus package provided $3 
billion infusion of funding for research at the National 
Science Foundation, but it later created a fiscal cliff as the 
level of funding was not sustained through the annual 
appropriations process. There is some evidence that this was 
more harmful than it was helpful to the research community when 
the stimulus actually ended, as there were suddenly far more 
trained researchers than there was funding. The President is 
now proposing $50 billion in stimulus funding for the National 
Science Foundation, and far more is proposed in the Endless 
Frontier Act.
    What were the lessons learned from the Recovery Act, and 
how do you propose ensuring that we would avoid creating 
another cliff if Congress were to provide another such infusion 
of these funds?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Aderholt. The 
way I see it, this is not a 1-year investment, per se. As I 
understand it, it is a multi-year investment. So that is the 
first thing I wanted to say.
    But I also wanted to say that one of the central pillars of 
my vision, and the foundation of it is partnerships. So when 
you look at development of the innovation centers that we are 
talking about, innovation accelerators that we are talking 
about, we are constantly looking at how we might partner with 
other agencies and industry particularly, so that we might 
bring resources to the table to sustain some of the programs 
that we are going to be starting here through these 
investments. And that partnership also includes local and 
regional governments in the future, because at the end of the 
day, we want to build ecosystems of prosperity in every part of 
the Nation.
    So you can imagine that economic development activities 
that will be spurred by the technological innovations that they 
will make possible as well as the scientific discoveries that 
made the technology innovations possible, simply because of the 
fact that when you see the actual return on investment, as I 
talked about earlier, as return on investment starts to take 
shape, people will be willing to build and invest and scale 
further.
    So this is an all-in approach rather than just only a 
certain amount of resources allocated to NSF only. But NSF is 
always mindful that such resources will be leveraged, and will 
be energizing basic research as well as transformational 
technology-oriented research.
    So I can tell you that what we have today, even, does not 
look anywhere near enough to what we need. I will give you an 
example. Today, with the proposal that we have and the ideas 
that we are leaving on the cutting room floor that have been 
recommended as highly fundable ideas, excellent ideas that 
needs to be invested in, we are leaving almost 100 percent of 
those ideas. We are only funding 50 percent of what we receive 
that could be funded. So right there, a doubling of NSF budget 
today is going to make possible to unleash those ideas.
    We cannot leave those ideas behind on the chopping room 
floor because that is what happens when we leave them behind. 
We are now inviting our competition to leap, to catch up with 
us. We are also inviting our competition to take advantage of 
those ideas that we are not investing in, and trying to see how 
they can invest in those and leap forward, so we cannot let 
that happen.
    So right here today, I can tell you, Ranking Member, that 
we need double the investments just with what we have today at 
NSF. Now, you add on top of that what we need for these 
innovation accelerators, what we need for the entrepreneurial 
ecosystem to be, you know, flourishing, what we need to have 
the SBIR, CPS programs achieving the full spectrum of their 
potential. I can tell you a quadrupling of the funding is just 
barely enough to be able to take us to all the ideas being 
unleashed so that we might be far ahead of the competition that 
I talked about. This is the time to do that. This is a very 
important thing, important time for us to do that. It cannot 
be, as you said--you know, it should not be a cliff, but 
clearly, the way I look at it is that it could be a sustained 
investment, not only because of what the Federal Government 
does, but also what we do through our partnerships in moving on 
us forward.
    Mr. Aderholt. Sure. Yeah. We just want to make sure that we 
don't get into creating a cliff like we did in years past, and 
so, that is what I wanted to bring to your attention.
    Let me move a little bit about the foreign government 
talent recruitment programs. I do want to follow up on one 
thing. The Inspector General reported that failure to properly 
disclose membership in the foreign government talent 
recruitment programs and there was other deliberate misconduct 
that could have criminal and civil ramifications.
    Their office has shared with us that the FBI requests for 
help from NSF inspector general has increased by 1,000 percent 
in the last 6 months.
    Do you think this surge in this FBI activity is an 
indication that the problem is getting worse, and that, 
perhaps, the NSF needs to do more? Is it an indication that NSF 
efforts are working and helping to bring more people to 
justice, or what do you think is going on with that?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So when you talked about the NSF 
approach, you know, as I was saying earlier, we launched this 
new chief office of cybersecurity strategy and policy, and she 
is working with a team of people within NSF, but more 
importantly, in partnership with our OIG, and, more 
importantly, in partnership with the intelligence agencies, 
including the FBI, so that we might ensure that we are giving 
it the due attention it deserves in order to make sure we are 
acting on things we need to act on as an agency.
    But as I said earlier, more importantly, we want to make 
sure that the partnership with the community of where the 
science happens, where the people are, namely, the universities 
and other entities, to make sure that we are able to work 
together in partnership to get the job done. And, so, that part 
is focused on intensely. I can tell you that there is a lot of 
intensity and intentionality here at NSF working in 
partnerships with OIG, the agencies, and the community.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. My time is up, but I just want to 
mention that that number is very alarming, and, you know, 
certainly we all, and I know you do take that very seriously, 
so thank you.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Case is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you again, Doctor. You know, we talked in 
my earlier questions, and you have answered a number of 
questions on foreign attempts, especially China, to essentially 
get our R&D for free. And one corollary of that, unfortunate 
corollary, is that oftentimes many of our communities feel 
targeted inside this country by our discussion and concerns. 
And in the case of China, we have a number of Chinese American 
community members, scientists who are concerned that they 
have--in your own internal review of potential influence by 
foreign governments have targeted, or may have targeted, their 
organizations or communities for special consideration. And, of 
course, that is of great concern to all of us that 
investigations be fair and balanced and not targeting any one 
community based solely on ethnicity, or, for that matter, 
national origin. These are citizens of our country.
    What can you say to them as to your efforts to assure that 
these investigations do not go in that direction? Certainly, 
the requests from that community is for greater transparency so 
that there is an understanding that that is not happening. I 
understand that there has to be a balance in investigations 
between transparency and effective investigations, so it is a 
balance that needs to be found. Nonetheless, this concern under 
the current atmosphere I think is particularly one that we 
should very much be sure that we are not making the wrong moves 
on.
    So what is your response? What is your effort to assure, in 
particular, the Chinese-American community, but it could be 
many other communities, for that matter, based on your 
investigation?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Representative Case, that is a good point 
that you are making, and I will tell you. The word that you 
use, which I will reflect back, is balance. How do we balance 
our approach in a way that we are protecting what needs to be 
protected without seemingly appearing that we are targeting 
anybody, or any particular segment of a population or 
investigators? At the same time, protecting what is the 
fundamental research which is important for the scientific 
community to, in fact, enrich itself. We will enrich ourselves 
by ensuring that we are having the right partners at the table.
    So we are doing everything possible. And the first thing I 
would say, having come from an institution where I was the 
officer responsible at the university for ensuring that our 
investigators were following the right protocols and 
procedures, is education.
    And, so, we are putting a lot of emphasis on training and 
education so that people don't get into trouble in the first 
place just because of, maybe, ignorance or maybe because of 
oversight.
    So we want to make sure that we first understand that most 
people are trying to do the right thing, and we want to promote 
that behavior, and reward the behavior and compliment the 
behavior, and more importantly, enable the behavior by training 
and education and things of that nature.
    So that is something that we will be focused on with our 
partners, because as I said, our partners are academia, and the 
work happens in academic environments, and the other folks 
which we fund to make sure that they are fully aware of the 
risks, but also to make sure that they are educating the people 
to make sure that they are not getting into practices that 
would get them into trouble. So we are focused on that.
    And at large, not only in this situation, and even the 
question that Representative Meng asked, we are ensuring that 
every community feels safe, and that their work is being 
rewarded and recognized, that they are being invested in for 
advancing our Nation's prosperity, our Nation's 
competitiveness, that we are never shying away from doing that. 
And so, this is a real balance, and so this something that I 
think we are working very closely, as I said, with our 
partners, and we are also ensuring that we are presenting our 
points of view to our partners so that in the balance context 
that you are talking about that we are keeping these things in 
mind, that people don't walk away or be exploited because of 
the fact that they feel alienated. And so, we are trying to 
balance that very carefully. And to the extent that NSF is a 
player in this, in trying to solve this problem and address 
this problem, we are trying to do the best that we can. And we 
are--it is an evolving threat. I can assure you that we are 
taking it very seriously because a number of questions have 
talked about this. It is an evolving threat. We are taking it 
seriously. We are doing it through strong partnerships but very 
mindful of the fact that people don't feel alienated or singled 
out.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Director. I would strongly urge your 
personal vigilance in this area. This is a very difficult time, 
especially for our Asian American community, and investigators 
with the best intentions can get carried away, so please watch 
this very carefully.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you. Will do. Will do so.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    And Mr. Cline is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Panchanathan, approximately 80 percent of NSF research 
and education funds are typically awarded to colleges, 
universities, and academic consortia. Of the remaining funds, 
roughly 13 percent goes to private industry. Can you tell me a 
little bit about the trend lines on that? Is that an increasing 
percentage, a decreasing percentage, or fairly steady?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So basically--thank you for the question. 
First of all, I want, Representative Cline, if I could take a 
moment because you asked a question in the last session, and 
you said that it would be good to get some answers. The Fleet 
Report. Recommendation No. 3 has been completed, and 
recommendation No. 1 and 2 will be completed by September 2021.
    Mr. Cline. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Panchanathan. And, also, I wanted to say that we have 
had, you know, clean audits for several years at NSF. So, I 
just want to make sure that you are assured that we always are 
focused on doing the right thing and will always do the right 
thing.
    Mr. Cline. And for the record, I will state that the OIG 
report did say that you were in compliance with the Federal 
management regulation guidelines, but that they had some 
suggestions, so I applaud you for jumping on those and taking 
care of them. Thank you.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much, Representative.
    To answer your question, we are increasingly working on how 
we might translate technologies and have meaningful societal 
and economic impact activity. So we do this in two ways, 
Representative Cline. One is what I call direct partnerships. 
Just in the last year, we have had probably close to, you know, 
tens of millions of dollars of partnership resources that our 
industry partners have brought, or our foundation partners have 
brought, so that we might tackle problems together for the 
betterment of the nation and the advancement of the nation.
    So at the same time, the other partnership is what we call 
indirect partnerships. These are when we fund a project, for 
example, in academia through a center, like engineering 
research centers, they then bring in industry resources 
together to have the largest impact possible, not only the 
basic science, but also the translational technology that comes 
out of it so we have impact through--that resource that 
brings--is brought to the table. So when we talk about this 
increase, I can tell you that the increase is happening also 
because of the fact that we are able to bring new resources 
through indirect and direct partnerships. So I would say that 
first.
    The second thing is, that is why I am very, very 
enthusiastic about the President's fiscal year 2022 budget. The 
Directorate of Technology is being proposed, and this will be a 
cross-cut initiative where it is going to leverage a lot of the 
technologies, the future technologies like AI, quantum, 
biotechnology, and others. But, more importantly, it is also 
going to leverage the future of the future of the industries.
    What do I mean by that? Let's take AI, for example. AI 
didn't happen magically today. AI happened because--because I 
am a researcher in the field, I can tell you. AI has been a 
sustained investment by NSF and other agencies for the last 
four to five decades, and today is now a rich, powerful 
technology that we all want to rapidly make sure that the 
marketplace and society gets enriched by that technology focus.
    So NSF is also making sure that happens, and happens at 
speed and scale. We are also working on technologies that are 
not even seen as technologies that will happen a decade, or two 
decades from now. That is why we are keeping the Nation ready 
always. That is what is unique about NSF. That is what is very, 
very powerful about NSF. And that is why as an NSF director, I 
can say this, but I can tell you even in my past role, this 
agency is really the shining light for our Nation. It is the 
plight of our Nation. It is what people outside think of us as 
gold standard. And so, we need to invest in this like no 
tomorrow in order for us to be able to leapfrog and never have 
to look back at our competition.
    So I look forward to the support of the entire committee 
and the entire Congress, and this is what is going to make it 
happen. So I really appreciate your time.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you. I, again, want to reiterate you have 
been in compliance as a result of most of your audits.
    I want to talk to you about your ability to ensure 
accountability within the grant recipients. So how do you 
engage with grant recipients to ensure that the funding is 
being used effectively for R&D, and for its intended purposes 
and just to ensure accountability within the grant recipients 
through your OIG?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Yeah. So, first of all, we have our own 
financial affairs office. We call it BFA, Budget, Finance, and 
Awards Management office. It works very closely with the 
awardees, the organizations like universities and other folks 
that we award money and make sure that the budget is clearly 
outlined, and that people are geared to spending outlined in 
the budget. And any deviations, if at all, have to be justified 
ahead of time and be approved. And, so, there is a very strict 
process at BFA in terms of money, how money is being dispensed 
because these are taxpayer funds and have to be spent very 
wisely, so we are very, very careful of that. And any 
deviations to that, which we see occasionally that happens as 
you saw from the audited books, we take that very seriously and 
ensure that OIG recommendations are followed through with that 
very, very clearly with our constituencies, and when 
appropriate, we take necessary actions to ensure that that 
never happens again. So we have a tight mechanism of 
accountability.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Ruppersberger, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, thank you, again.
    My question is about NSF and quantum. I was pleased to see 
the President's budget requested a huge--or a proposal for a 
new NSF directorate to expedite technology development in the 
areas that are critical to the U.S. competitiveness in areas 
like quantum and space.
    Now, Maryland is a global leader in quantum science. We are 
home to academic, Federal, and industry leaders in this space 
such as my alma mater, the University of Maryland, the Army 
Research Lab, and the University of Maryland startup company 
called IonQ, all of which are working together to build 
powerful computers and develop secure communication networks.
    Can you provide me more details about how this new 
directorate will advance quantum technologies and space? For 
example, what kind of research partnership will it support? How 
would it work with other Federal science agencies that support 
quantum technology, including the defense and intelligence 
agencies.
    And as if quantum isn't enough, if we have any time, I 
would like to get into the issue of space, too. But if you 
could handle this first, and it is within my time, I would like 
to hear your points on that issue.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative. You are 
absolutely correct. Quantum is one of the future technologies 
that we need to ensure that we are doing everything to 
strengthen speed and scale. So the technology directorate that 
you are talking about is a horizontal, and the horizontal 
essentially works with all the verticals. So much of the 
quantum work happens in our mathematical and physical sciences 
directorate, in the engineering directorate, as well as in our 
computing information science and engineering directorate, and 
others, too. But these three are the predominant directorates 
where quantum work happens.
    So we are ensuring that these quantum ideas that are being 
worked out in the labs, in the academic labs and other places, 
are energized and leveraged so that the technology directorate 
can quickly invest and see how we can rapidly bring them to 
market.
    At the same time, we are also looking at what needs to be 
done in quantum in basic research terms, so that we might be 
prepared for the technologies of tomorrow for quantum, through 
quantum computing efforts. And then to your point that you 
made, this has to be in partnership with fellow agencies who 
are also working on this imperative. Our Quantum Institutes 
launch last year was done in partnership with the Department of 
Energy, so we are looking at every partnership possibility.
    So I will tell you when I took over as the director in July 
of last year, the first 2 or 3 weeks, I reached out to every 
agency leader, and I told them, how can we partner together, 
because I always believe 1 plus 1 is not 2, but 1 plus 1 is 3 
or more. Let us work together on grant challenge problems, and 
quantum was one of them. AI was the other.
    And so, we are looking at all these problems, and space you 
mentioned, and we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with 
NASA so that we might do even more work with NASA, because 
there is a lot of synergy of purpose here, but we also have 
uniqueness that we all bring to the table. And that is why 
bringing our assets together can be exceedingly valuable. And I 
can assure you that this technology directorate is going to 
have partnership as its DNA expressed even more strongly than 
what NSF has been doing in the past.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. And I like that answer.
    Could you also just explain, from your point of view, that 
is not classified, why quantum is so important, that we do 
better than China and Russia, and our other countries like 
them?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So the speed at which we are able to 
sense, the speed at which we were able to process, the low 
energy consumption of quantum technologies, and more, makes it 
an elegant technology for scaling into the future. We already 
have, as you know, a representative in our handheld devices, 
you know. Billions and trillions of devices and transistors in 
there, consuming a lot of power. But then the speed of 
computing that is the Moore's Law--I don't want to go into the 
technical details, but being a computer scientist, I am afraid 
I will do that.
    So the Moore's Law has limits to what can be done with 
semiconductor technology. So quantum takes it to the next level 
in terms of how fast we can compute, how efficiently we can 
compute, how effectively we can compute. That is just one 
example. Same thing with texting and others. So this is why 
quantum is a very rich technology paradigm, and that is why so 
much focus has been on quantum.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thanks, Dutch.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you, 
Doctor, for the excellent testimony.
    You mentioned the establishment of the new directorate 
leadership in emerging technologies. You briefly touched on the 
organizational overlay, I think going effectively horizontal 
across multiple vertical works. Have you been able to--you 
know, that is a good org chart in construct, but have been able 
to liaise with other organizations? You talked about emulating 
DARPA. But have you reached out to get sort of lessons learned 
either from DARPA or, you know, Rapid Capability Office within 
the Air Force to figure out from a contracting, disbursing 
money, to setting requirements early, and getting, you know, 
effectively the sell-off of whatever your desired project is 
delivered on time, to wash in, you know, the best practices and 
techniques for what you are trying to accomplish?
    If you can, kind of just walk us through how you envision 
this new directorate to, beyond just the organizational 
construct to actually engage with the other verticals within 
your organization?
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Garcia, for the 
question. So you are absolutely correct about the fact that we 
need to be nimble. We need to be able to translate things very 
rapidly for which we need the ability to find constructs and 
processes that enable us to do that. So you pointed out DARPA. 
I talked to DARPA leadership and have been engaging with DARPA 
to understand the best practices in DARPA.
    Likewise, with the Air Force, we have a sustained 
partnership with the Air Force. We signed an MOU with the Air 
Force. We do a number of projects with them, so we are going to 
be working with the Air Force. Energy. Last week I had the 
privilege of talking to Secretary Granholm. I sent a note to 
her saying that I would very much welcome the opportunity of 
talking to her. I sent a similar invitation to the Secretary of 
Commerce. I believe that these partnerships and understanding 
of how things work in Commerce, how things work in Energy, how 
things work in NASA, how things work in DOE, and how things 
work, you know, in other agencies, DARPA and DoD and Air Force, 
is exceedingly important.
    So as we are thinking about the horizontals, we don't want 
to recreate something. We want to learn, but adapt, because it 
is not just taking that and putting it here, but what does it 
make to contextualize it to what NSF is trying to achieve here? 
At the same time, we are also working with communities, 
specifically industry. In the cohort season right now, what I 
do is, I have many listening sessions with industry partners in 
the Bay area, for example. I have had many listening 
conversations with industry leaders. So I swing my chair from 
here to there. I go from the Bay area to Maine and down to 
Louisiana, talking to people and asking them, what if NSF did 
have the industry partnerships at the higher level of intensity 
and higher speed of translation to learn from industry what 
those choke points are, and we will come back and be partners? 
What are the choke points, because we want to make sure as we 
are constructing this horizontal and leveraging the verticals 
and energizing the verticals that we are ensuring that this 
agency has to be nimble to realize in its fullest form. And so 
I can assure you that is how we are moving forward with this.
    Mr. Garcia. Great. I love the concept. I think, you know, 
if done correctly, the $10.2 billion can behave like $20 
billion. I have a mantra that, you know, speed is life, 
especially in the STEM world and Moore's Law, you know, that 
you just described. We have got to accelerate these timelines.
    But the figure you have in your material you provided, I 
think it is called Figure 11 which shows our investments 
relative to other Nations, specifically China in absolute 
dollars, the last data point on this chart is from 2017, and we 
only had about a $50 billion delta between us and China. As you 
suggested in your opening comments, their rate over rate change 
is more significant than ours. And I think the reality is if we 
were to snap the line today and look at the data, they probably 
are already spending more than we are in absolute terms. They 
are bringing to bear an entire Nation to their agenda at the 
expense of their people.
    So I applaud you for standing up this new directorate and 
looking forward to seeing how this new directorate can actually 
provide velocity and be a force multiplier to your budgets 
which maybe should be higher, but we can't afford it to be 
higher, so we need it to be more efficient. So thank you for 
your testimony today, Doctor.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Garcia. Thank 
you for all your support.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thanks, Mike.
    And now for our final questioner, Dr. Panchanathan, 
Representative Charlie Crist.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. And, 
Director, thank you again for your being with us so long.
    In November, the Institute of International Education 
released its fall 2020 international student enrollment 
snapshot, which surveyed over 700 colleges and universities. 
And according to this survey, the total number of international 
students enrolled at United States' colleges and universities 
fell by 16 percent in the fall of 2020 with a 43 percent drop 
in new student enrollments.
    Regardless of the reasons for the decline, can you discuss 
the value of international students to the U.S. research 
enterprise?
    Mr. Panchanathan. So I can discuss the value by show and 
tell. I am standing in front of you. A global talent that is 
very, very grateful. I am--indeed, I cannot express my 
gratitude, you know, better than, you know--I don't have words 
to express this. I am so grateful in every part of my body. My 
sense of gratitude, you know, it exudes, okay.
    I came to do this job at NSF because of the gratitude that 
I have for this amazing Nation that gave me amazing 
opportunities, and this fabric of meritocracy that permeates 
everything that we do in this great Nation. I am so grateful. I 
hope I have said it enough. And so I can tell you that----
    Mr. Crist. I feel it. I am grateful too. If I may.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Yes.
    Mr. Crist. My grandfather emigrated from Greece, my 
grandmother emigrated from Lebanon, and they are on my father's 
side. And on my mother's side, it was Britain, Switzerland, and 
Ireland, and, so, I am enormously grateful as well to America, 
as are you. And I have a dear friend in Florida----
    Mr. Panchanathan. And that is what makes us a great Nation. 
That is what makes us this great Nation that we are.
    Mr. Crist. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Panchanathan. And, therefore, to answer your question, 
Representative, we should be welcoming global talent like there 
is no tomorrow. Let me be very clear about this. I have said 
this in many, many ways. I said that access and inclusivity are 
exceedingly important for our Nation at this very important 
time. We need to find talent across the socioeconomic, 
demographic, and the geographical diversity of the Nation. We 
need domestic talent unleashed at full force and full scale.
    For far too long, for far too long, global talent has been 
substituted to domestic talent. That is not an acceptable 
future for our Nation. What we need is global talent additive, 
augmented to domestic talent that both domestic talent and 
global talent should be unleashed to its full force and full 
scale. Because when you are competing against countries, when 
you talk about China, it is 1.2 billion people in China. But we 
are a nimble Nation, an entrepreneurial Nation, an innovative 
nation. Therefore, we need the talent on both fronts to compete 
and be ahead of nations like China.
    So, we need domestic talent unleashed at full force, full 
scale, global talent welcomed at full force, full scale. A 
combination of that will place us in the vanguard of prosperity 
and global competitiveness, and we will be far ahead. We will 
win this race always if we have the mind set of inclusion of 
talent because the talent will express itself because this 
fabric of democracy, this fabric of meritocracy will no doubt 
ensure that there will be hundreds of thousands of people, or 
millions of people like you and me which make this country and 
make this Nation great into the future.
    Mr. Crist. I couldn't agree with you more. We are the 
melting pot of the world, and my Florida is the melting pot of 
the Nation. We are pretty diverse.
    Mr. Chairman, I am done, and thank you so much for setting 
up this hearing. And, Director, thank you for being with us 
today. It has been an honor to be with you.
    Mr. Panchanathan. It was mine, too.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Congressman Crist. I 
congratulate you on bringing Dr. Panchanathan----
    Mr. Panchanathan. You are muted, Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. I congratulate you, Charlie, on bringing 
Dr. Panchanathan out of his shell to express his patriotism, 
and you as well.
    And, Dr. Panchanathan, you have only been at NSF for a 
short time, however it is pretty clear that you have hit the 
ground running. I thank you for appearing here today. You have 
been an impressive witness. You fielded our questions, but you 
are not done yet because we may be sending you more questions 
via email. In fact, I am sure we will be. So we will be 
grateful to you for continuing to field those questions as part 
of this hearing.
    And I am going to bring this hearing to a formal close. Let 
me see here. Again, for the members, House rules require me to 
remind you that we have set up an email address to which 
members can send anything they wish to submit in writing, and 
we have secured the commitment from Dr. Panchanathan to answer 
those questions. The email address has previously been provided 
to all of you and your staff.
    At this point, the hearing is adjourned.
    Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     

                                          Thursday, April 15, 2021.

INCREASING RISKS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND NOAA'S ROLE IN PROVIDING CLIMATE 
                                SERVICES

                                WITNESS

NICOLE LEBOEUF, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
STEPHEN VOLZ, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NOAA's NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
    SATELLITE DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICES, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF 
    ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATION AND 
    PREDICTION
    Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few 
housekeeping matters. For today's meeting, the chair, or staff 
designated by the chair, may mute participants' microphones 
when they are not under recognition for the purposes of 
eliminating stray background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and un-muting 
themselves. If I notice that you have not un-muted yourself, I 
may ask you if you would like staff to un-mute you. If you 
indicate approval by nodding, staff will go ahead and un-mute 
your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on 
your screen. Everybody try to stay in grid mode so that you can 
see that screen, that clock, it will show how much time is 
remaining. At the 1-minute remaining mark, the clock will turn 
to yellow. At 30-seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel 
to remind members that their time is almost expired. When your 
time is expired, the clock will turn red and I will begin to 
recognize the next member in line.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the 
chair and ranking member, and then members present at the time 
the hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority, and, finally, members not present at the time the 
hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups, 
and that email address has been provided in advance to your 
staff.
    The subcommittee shall come to order and good morning.
    Today, for the first in this 117th Congress, this 
subcommittee welcomes representatives from the Department of 
Commerce in this case from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, commonly known as NOAA.
    With us today are Steve Volz and Nicole LeBoeuf. Dr. Volz 
is an Assistant Administrator for NOAA who oversees the 
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service. 
He is also performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of 
Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction.
    I am told that that was a very long-winded way of saying 
that you are NOAA's satellite guy, Dr. Volz. Thank you for 
being here.
    And Nicole LeBoeuf, who currently serves as Acting 
Assistant Administrator for NOAA overseeing the National Ocean 
Service. And welcome to you, Ms. LeBoeuf.
    It is increasingly clear that the issue of climate change 
is no longer one we can talk about in reference to something 
our children, our grandchildren, and their children will have 
to address; it is here now and it is happening to us.
    We are witnessing these impacts, ranging from the 
horrifying wildfires out West to the tornadoes and severe 
storms in the Midwest, increasingly in the South; to the 
hurricanes in the Southeast and on the Gulf Coast. We are 
seeing more frequent flooding throughout the country, including 
in my Northeastern Pennsylvania district.
    This past year, the United States saw a record 22 distinct 
severe weather events that cost over $1,000,000,000 each in 
damages, beating the previous high levels by six events. The 
ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic have lost over 11 
trillion tons of ice in just the last 25 years. Global sea 
levels has risen about 8 inches in the last century, and that 
rate is accelerating every year. And the five warmest years on 
record are the last 5 years that we have all lived.
    My district in Northeastern Pennsylvania is no stranger to 
the struggle against climate change. After Tropical Storm Agnes 
devastated the Wyoming Valley in 1972, the city of Wilkes-Barre 
added to their levees that now reach 44 feet high, but the 
Susquehanna River nearly topped them, setting a record and 
reaching nearly 43 feet in 2011 as a result of Tropical Storm 
Lee. That was an extremely close call for the City of Wilkes-
Barre and very well may have cost residents thousands of 
dollars apiece in additional flood insurance as the definition 
of the 100-year event changes along with the climate changes.
    We need to be doing more to address the increasing risk 
that our communities are facing all over this country. These 
data and stories all paint a bleak picture of the outlook we 
face as we look to adapt our society to our new climate 
reality.
    As we sit here today, Congress is looking to make 
investments in infrastructure and to do that in an intelligent 
way. Infrastructure planning decisions, especially at the local 
level, increasingly rely on high-quality, credible climate 
information, and that is where NOAA comes in. I am looking 
forward to exploring how our climate system is changing, the 
threats that we face, and how you deliver this critical climate 
information to decision makers at all levels of government, as 
well as private businesses and for individual citizens.
    The Federal Government has to have the tools and resources 
it needs to further our understanding of the changing climate 
and to inform the American people about the corresponding 
risks, so that we can prepare and respond accordingly. It is my 
intention as chairman that the CJS subcommittee will help lead 
the way in this effort.
    Dr. Volz and Ms. LeBoeuf, it is a privilege to have you 
join us for this important discussion and to learn from your 
expertise on this subject, but before we begin I would like to 
recognize my friend Mr. Aderholt, the ranking member, at this 
time for any opening remarks he wish to make.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be 
with everyone again today. And thank you for yielding.
    I appreciate you holding the hearing that we are having 
today and I want to join you in welcoming our two distinguished 
executives at NOAA, Ms. Nicole LeBoeuf, who is the Acting 
Administrator for NOAA, and also for the National Ocean 
Services; and Dr. Stephen Volz, who is Assistant Administrator 
for the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information 
Service, as you refer to him as the satellite guy. So welcome 
to both of you for being with us today.
    As career officials, your presence today is a very helpful 
reminder that it is possible to set aside politics of climate 
change and focus on the questions of how to best help our 
constituents make informed decisions for themselves, for their 
families, and also for their livelihoods.
    From low Earth orbit to the lowest trenches of the sea, 
there is perhaps no other federal agency more directly involved 
than NOAA in letting people know what nature is up to. So thank 
you again for taking time to be here.
    Congress has debated climate policy literally for decades, 
and it will probably continue to do so for decades to come. And 
parts of that debate will continue to include well-meaning 
questions meant to ensure that we are doing everything we can 
to better understand the global climate system around us and 
improve our ability to predict it.
    While some of us debate, others that are in the financial, 
transportation, insurance, energy, construction, and other 
industry sectors are already incorporating climate risk in 
their business models based in part on the information that 
NOAA and others provide to them. So, in that sense, it is only 
prudent that Congress conduct oversight of the quality and 
efficiency of NOAA's climate services, of which there are many.
    How these various services all fit together and are 
coordinated is a question that has been on our minds for some 
time, and I hope that we can discuss this between us today.
    NOAA's Southern Regional Climate Service Program says on 
its website that the Southern United States is one of the most 
climate-sensitive areas of the Nation. Extreme weather events, 
significant droughts, and rising sea levels are but a few 
examples of the challenges that communities are responding to 
across the region. It is hard to dispute that when you are 
seeking shelter from deadly tornadoes and baseball-size hail 
that we were in our State of Alabama just in the last few 
weeks. And I recognize that NOAA is working hard to improve not 
only its ability to predict such extreme weather events, but 
also the way it informs the public through a variety of 
important platforms and programs like VORTEX Southeast. And I 
am grateful for all the great people at NOAA who are dedicating 
themselves to this work.
    But climate services, as we know, go beyond weather 
observation and forecasting, and I am looking forward to 
actually learning a lot more about these other services and how 
that I can help my constituents, as I know my colleagues want 
to help their constituents back home, and I believe we can and 
should get our constituents the best information possible to 
mitigate climate risk while we pursue realistic and innovative 
solutions to climate change that protect the interest of the 
American people, our communities, and our country's economic 
well being.
    Again, thanks, Mr. Chairman, for hosting today this event, 
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our guests today, 
and thank you for yielding.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
    At this time, Dr. Volz, you are recognized for your opening 
remarks. Try to keep them to 5 minutes, and remember your full 
written statement will be entered in the record.
    Dr. Volz. So, thank you, sir, and good morning. Thank you, 
Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members of 
the subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today regarding NOAA's climate and environmental 
services, and for focusing on the critical subject of climate 
change.
    I am honored to be here as NOAA's Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Commerce for Environmental Observation and 
Prediction, the satellite guy as well. My colleague Nicole 
LeBoeuf and I represent over 12,000 NOAA civil servants and 
many thousands more in the cooperative institutes, and in our 
national and international partners.
    The dynamic Earth's system is changing in unprecedented 
ways; the changes are continuous and pervasive, and they are 
accelerating. Wherever we look, we see the indications of 
change. Through our measurements of atmospheric composition and 
temperature, global sea levels and polar ice cover, and we see 
the impact of these changes on humans and on their livelihoods. 
We are observing significant stress in the coral reefs around 
the world caused by warming waters and more severe storms, and 
we measure enhanced carbon dioxide levels at the top of Mauna 
Loa volcano in Hawaii and in the world ocean. We are seeing the 
impact of power systems of extreme cold in Texas and Alabama 
just recently, and extreme heat in Alaska that is forcing once-
abundant fish stocks to migrate outside our national waters.
    The fourth national climate assessment projects that 
extreme weather and climate events are going to worsen in 
intensity, duration, and frequency over the coming decades.
    NOAA is the Nation's climate service. Observing the world 
with satellites, hurricane hunter aircraft, coastal and deep 
ocean vessels, weather stations, and ocean buoys, we collect 
the data that demonstrates the climate is changing at an 
accelerated rate.
    NOAA shares with our other federal agencies our mission of 
science, Earth observation, and research, but we are unique in 
two key aspects. First and foremost, NOAA is a service agency. 
It is our mission and our mandate to deliver operational 
climate information to partners and to communities. But 
understand climate science and change is critical, but it is 
not enough. NOAA connects climate science to the community.
    Second, NOAA is the Federal Government's only ocean-focused 
agency and the only agency in the world with a whole Earth 
observation's responsibility and capability. We observe the 
environment from the bottom of the ocean to the surface of the 
Sun, and we make climate and environmental information 
accessible to communities. NOAA is the essential partner in 
this global endeavor.
    As the world's climate is changing rapidly, our 
understanding of the environment must keep pace. Our mission of 
science, service, and stewardship is more urgent than ever. 
From farms to fisheries, to the floor of the Chicago Mercantile 
Exchange and other markets, NOAA's sciences and services enable 
the safe and profitable stream of American commerce.
    NOAA's extreme weather forecasts and warnings reach people 
via cell phones, radio and network broadcasts, and local 
emergency alert systems. Local and national policymakers depend 
on our environmental and climate data archives to inform 
decisions great and small. Where does the flood plain start? 
Does our local town have enough road salt for the winter? How 
should I update my county's building codes in the face of 
expected environmental conditions over the next 30 years? NOAA 
can help answer these questions.
    Some of the expected changes, for example, more powerful 
hurricanes, drive improvement of our long-term weather research 
and applications. Heavier rain events have contributed to 
increased river flooding in communities like Scranton, 
Pennsylvania, and Gadsden, Alabama. Other events stand out as 
significant departures of historical norms, such as the 
intensity and frequency of wildfires and drought.
    The increased heat in the atmosphere and in particular in 
the ocean, driven by global warning, is changing the dynamics 
of our weather and environmental systems. New observations, 
research, and modeling of the interconnected Earth system are 
needed to understand the changing world and to provide the 
information services our Nation requires.
    To meet this challenge, NOAA must provide a deeper and more 
comprehensive understanding of our complex Earth environment. 
This requires a robust, state-of-the-art global observing 
system and expanded research of the ocean, land, atmosphere, 
and the Sun to monitor and model the physical, chemical, and 
biological features of our world.
    For example, we know the ocean is a major driver in 
regional climate variability. NOAA's ocean observing system 
must rise to the challenge of providing that information.
    I have worked for 35 years at NOAA, NASA, and in industry, 
and working with observation and informational systems at all 
scales, and I see before us what I see as the ultimate systems 
challenge: to understand and observe a world in which we and 
every other organism can live well. We must prepare not just 
for today's needs, but for the environment that we know is 
coming. This will be a world with more storms, more floods and 
wildfires, and economic and ecosystem disruptions.
    I know that NOAA, working with our partners at NASA, the 
USGS, and the global Earth-observing community, can meet this 
challenge. With the commitment from our community, with 
direction and investment from our stakeholders, NOAA stands 
ready to help communities understand and prepare for the 
changes that we are already seeing and those that are still to 
come. Our country can adapt and even thrive by anticipating and 
living in greater balance within these new environmental 
patterns.
    Thank you and I turn now to my colleague, Nicole LeBoeuf, 
for her statement--or back to you, Chairman Cartwright.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Dr. Volz.
    And at this time, Ms. LeBoeuf, you are recognized for 5 
minutes of remarks.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, 
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 
to testify today. I am Nicole LeBoeuf, Acting NOAA Assistant 
Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Storm Management. 
My statement will outline how NOAA transforms climate data into 
climate services, and how the need for our work is changing 
along with our planet.
    For over 50 years, NOAA has been trusted to help 
communities prepare for and respond to weather and climate-
related events. NOAA is here to make good on that trust. NOAA 
provides the American people with accurate forecasts and 
predictions, and we are uniquely qualified to prepare our 
Nation for a changing world because, like with weather 
forecasts, we turn climate science into services to save lives, 
protect property, and to reduce our risks for the future. And 
with a mission to serve all Americans, I am here to say in 
admittedly unscientific terms that it is go time.
    Americans are already feeling the impacts of climate 
change. The United States has experienced $1.7 trillion worth 
of damage from weather and climate disasters since 1980, and 
the rate at which these events is happening is accelerating. 
Fortunately, NOAA offers climate services for everyday 
Americans in the heartland and inner harbors affecting our 
daily lives and major economic investments across sectors. Our 
drought services support farmers and ranchers in the West and 
on the Great Plains, and are increasingly tested as weather and 
climate patterns shift.
    With a warming ocean rapidly intensifying hurricanes make 
NOAA's work to improve hurricane forecasts more important than 
ever. Our rivers are experiencing record floods, making 
seasonal flood predictions via NOAA's national water model a 
top priority. Mapping urban heat islands with city officials in 
places like Detroit and Baltimore help communities plan and 
protect those most vulnerable among us. And with 40 percent of 
Americans living in coastal counties, millions of lives are 
already disrupted by what some call nuisance flooding. It is 
more than a nuisance if you can't get to a hospital or if you 
are a local official investing limited dollars in 
infrastructure improvements.
    I have met with the Mayor of Charleston, Lieutenant 
Governor of Louisiana, Army Corps Colonels in Florida, and port 
authorities all along our coasts. They are already seeing the 
impacts of changing weather and climate patterns on their 
operations and on their communities. They are elevating 
roadways and securing utilities, and they are calling on NOAA 
for our expert help. We are answering the call, but there is 
more that we could be doing.
    I grew up along the Texas Gulf Coast. Houses that were two 
or three blocks from the beach when I was a kid are now at the 
water's edge without protection from the next storm. My family 
has got insurance, but not everybody does. This is just one of 
the challenges faced by the poor, often people of color, and 
rural communities most vulnerable to wildfires, freezing 
temperatures, and floods.
    NOAA helps under-served communities through technical 
assistance, extension services, and on-the-ground partnerships 
like habitat-restoration projects, which provide jobs for young 
adults, including veterans. We have long-standing partnerships 
with first responders, the agricultural sector, flood plain 
managers, and tribal nations, and we are forging new ones with 
real estate, finance, and health professionals, to name a few.
    From around the world, other countries and global leaders 
in the shipping and reinsurance industries are reaching out for 
NOAA's climate advice because they know that NOAA's reputation 
for delivering accurate and reliable information is well 
earned.
    And NOAA works closely with other federal agencies like the 
Department of Defense. Because of a partner with NOAA and 
others, DOD now requires its coastal installations worldwide to 
consider the impacts of sea level rise on military readiness, 
including at our Nation's largest naval station in Norfolk, 
Virginia. I have walked the base at Norfolk with DOD engineers 
and facility specialists. When the base floods, and it does, it 
is getting harder for military personnel to get to their posts.
    America trusts NOAA and the demand for our climate services 
is growing rapidly. In fact, Americans are asking for more of 
services we have only begun to scale up, such as fire weather 
predictions, projections of climate impacts on fisheries, and 
harmful algal bloom forecasts.
    Local officials, industries, and communities must decide 
how and when to ready themselves for climate change based upon 
their region's vulnerability and their own tolerance for risk. 
NOAA's authoritative climate tools and services must underpin 
their decisions, meaning that NOAA must also be ready if our 
Nation is to be resilient to climate change.
    Honorable members of the subcommittee, I have worked for 
NOAA for most of my adult life. We have an unparalleled 
opportunity to not only take care of our own, but to 
demonstrate American leadership in adapting to climate change. 
NOAA has the expertise, the mission, and a deeply committed 
workforce eager to do even more of what NOAA does so well: 
safeguard the American people when and where they need us the 
most. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to further 
focus our efforts.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that opening statement, Ms. 
LeBoeuf, and for our witnesses.
    We now begin the question period. Each member will ask you 
5 minutes of questions at a time and I begin myself, I 
recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
    You know, right now we are talking about aggressive, 
ambitious infrastructure building, infrastructure bills. And as 
we consider the Administration's infrastructure plan, I want to 
say NOAA has a critical government-wide role to play in this. 
We are looking at investing in roads and bridges, and water 
systems and sewer systems, and other pieces of hard 
infrastructure that are intended to last, you know, 30 to 50 
years, and sometimes longer. We need to ensure these projects 
are built in such a way as to account for changing future 
conditions.
    As I understand it, of any agency NOAA has the best 
understanding of what kind of environmental conditions these 
investments will be exposed to over that kind of extended 
period of time. Am I correct in that?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, sir, you are.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, so the envisioned plan will contain a 
whole lot of bridges and sewers and levees that will each 
individually need an assessment of their future risk profiles. 
What is your capacity, if you have it, to provide that kind of 
detailed analysis and support services?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, sir, for that question.
    We do have some capacity, but the demand for that expertise 
is growing rapidly and we are, at this point, unable to keep up 
with that demand.
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay, so that follows the next question. 
What are states and local governments doing now if you cannot 
provide support to all of them?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yeah, thank you for that question.
    So state and local municipalities in many cases are being 
served well by NOAA. We have so many partnerships and really 
boots on the ground to help them interpret NOAA data, and to 
supply their own communities with the kind of information that 
they need and that they are asking for.
    Where we can't provide that, either the type of climate 
information or the granularity is just not available to NOAA at 
this time, those local townships and communities are actually 
beginning to pay for that information from private companies, 
and that is precious dollars that they should, quite frankly, 
be saving to spend on the infrastructure projects that they are 
going to need.
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So they go to the private sector--and 
I certainly have no problems or concerns with the private 
sector filling in the gaps that the Federal Government can't 
close, but I do worry about the quality, in addition to the 
price, I worry about the quality of the information in this 
case. Is there any way to control the quality of privately-
obtained climate data, and what can we learn from the National 
Weather Service and their interactions with the Weather Channel 
and Accuweather, and things like that?
    Dr. Volz. Well, that is a great question and we deal with 
this on a regular basis, sir.
    Controlling the quality, we have--from the examples you 
provided, Accuweather, the Weather Channel, we have developed 
over many years a working relationship with the weather 
enterprise, as we call it, where we share the space that we 
work in, but NOAA is known to be the one that provides the 
baseline data that are so essential. We provide standards and 
clarity of what is good data and how do you validate data. So, 
when working with the private sector, we envision the same 
evolution will take place. But right now we cannot control what 
a private sector data-collector might be if they work on their 
own, but we encourage through the avenues that Nicole 
mentioned, the communities work with us through our regional 
connections to find the right sources of data and to work with 
us, or to identify with us the way to get the correct data.
    I expect over time our standards and ability to provide 
those standards will increase the quality of data overall, 
including the privately-provided data.
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Now, if a governmental agency, some 
local government entity does not want to rely on the private 
sector for climate information, what other options for engaging 
with NOAA? Is there some minimum level of climate services that 
NOAA needs to develop for communities that cannot afford 
consultants with fancy proprietary models of their own?
    Dr. Volz. Yes, there are a certain level of global or 
country-wide environmental data that we provide. And, as 
mentioned, we have a number of regional constructs which allow 
the communities to reach out to NOAA, to work with NOAA, 
whether it is through our regional climate centers, which 
provide operational streams of data spread around the country, 
and through our research and--our RISAs, which are an 
organization that provides an interactive engagement with 
different communities around the country about questions they 
have and what sources--what services we can provide and what we 
can't.
    But, as Nicole mentioned, we are under-resourced to answer 
all the questions that we see coming, but we have avenues for 
first contact to reach out to us around the Nation.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. Well, Dr. Volz and Ms. LeBoeuf, 
we are the subcommittee that make the first decision on what 
kind of resources NOAA is going to get. Ideally, how would 
additional resources be used to expand climate observations and 
services in all-of-government approach to the climate crisis.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, thank you for that question.
    So NOAA is an ideal bridge between the other federal 
agencies. So, in saying that, what I mean is that there are 
science-based agencies like NSF and DOE and others, and there 
are service-based agencies, HUD and FEMA and Defense, for 
example; NOAA has both a science and a service mission. And so 
along that continuum NOAA needs investments from observations 
and basic research, to forecasts and modeling--which is unique 
to NOAA, the forecasting and predicting--all the way to getting 
more boots on the ground and our ability to have more 
partnerships with communities, so that we can do more listening 
and get them the services that they need.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. Well, I have gone over my time, 
and I would like to yield now and recognize our ranking member, 
Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yeah, let me address this question to both of you, either 
one of you. The testimony mentions that NOAA's role in 
providing the National Climate Assessment as a climate service 
and, as we read the four key messages coming out of the chapter 
on the Southeast, it paints a pretty bleak picture. For 
example, one message says, by the end of the century, over one 
half billion labor hours could be lost from extreme heat-
related impacts.
    I am wondering if you would help us understand some of the 
assumptions and the uncertainty with those predictions.
    For instance, what does the report assume about new 
technologies that may be available in 50 to a hundred years 
that we really can't imagine right now?
    Dr. Volz. So thank you, sir, for the question.
    The report as you referred to, the National Climate 
Assessment, uses the projection of current conditions and 
expected and sort of well-predicted future environmental 
factors, not just space-land environment, but humans as well, I 
mean our built structure, our built infrastructure. I do not 
believe that it can anticipate dramatic changes in technology 
which could dramatically change the way that we would react to 
a particular heat event, for example.
    However, the forward-looking report does say that these are 
what--without further mitigations or adaptations that we make, 
these would be some of the impacts. And what we focus on is how 
do we address and understand those potential impacts or 
mitigations that we can identify for the communities to prepare 
for a worsening or warmer environment that they have to deal 
with.
    Mr. Aderholt. What are some of the things built in these 
predictions that you are least certain about, and do you think 
there is room for improvement on how well uncertainty is 
communicated to the public?
    Dr. Volz. So the forecast projections from the National 
Climate Assessment are certainly, they are our projections of 
future environment. I will say that our past history of 
performance of these models in anticipating the future have 
been accurate.
    Thirty years ago when we made these assessments of what the 
climate would look like, using NOAA's climate model and others 
as well, has been largely played out in what we see today. 
Where there are variations, it is on variations in the CO2 
emissions that may have occurred during an economic downturn or 
something like that.
    So we are very confident in the broad scale of projections 
from the Climate Assessment. What we need, what we think is 
still needed is additional research and observations to fine 
tune those to be more tailored not just on a global scale, but 
to a regional and local scale, and that is where the additional 
observations, research, and interaction can lead us to give 
more detailed recommendations on adaptations and mitigations to 
reduce the impact and potentially the severity of the climate 
change.
    Mr. Aderholt. How are people using the National Climate 
Assessment to make decisions and would you have any concerns 
that people might be misinterpreting the information that they 
are receiving?
    Dr. Volz. I can't speak, sir, to how all people are using 
the National Climate Assessment. It is a very comprehensive 
document with many different recommendations.
    I can speak to how NOAA and our partners are using it as an 
accurate and a detailed projection of the world--the changes in 
the environment that we anticipate based on the best science 
and the best observations. Our job as an agency, a service 
agency is to help people interpret the information that we 
provide either through our own services or through the NCA, so 
that they can make the best judgments, and that is where those 
boots on the ground, that interaction on a local and regional 
scale really allows the big, 700-page NCA document to be 
interpreted in the community in a language of the people where 
they can apply it.
    So that is really the intermediary job that Nicole 
mentioned earlier that NOAA can play very well because we not 
only have the research science, but we also have the expertise 
in a local and regional scale that can interpret that for 
application and use.
    Mr. Aderholt. Where can our subcommittee be most helpful 
with NOAA's budget in order to try to minimize uncertainties in 
future National Climate Assessments?
    Dr. Volz. I think the most direct way is to recognize that 
it is a whole environmental approach, it is observations and 
information and dissemination. And you will hear from our 
statements and from the conversation today how we have needs--
we have capacity to grow and improve our services in all of 
those range.
    So I think it would be not just assuming that climate is 
one thing, it is just put money on climate, but it is 
observations, it is information, it is dissemination, and it is 
service provision, and that is where you need to make sure you 
look at the whole value chain so that you can provide the best 
use and the best value to the individual communities.
    Mr. Aderholt. Ms. LeBoeuf, do you want to add anything?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. No, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. All right, I see my time is up. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Grace 
Meng of New York for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apologies for having my 
camera off. My connection is weak. And thank you to Assistant 
Secretary Volz and Assistant Administrator LeBoeuf for being 
here today and for your work.
    My first question is about Regional Integrated Sciences and 
Assessments, who for more than 20 years have provided 
communities with world-class scientific talent to devise local 
solutions to combat extreme weather events.
    As you know, from wildfires in the West to hurricanes in 
the South, to extreme heat in New York City, our Nation 
confronts various weather-related challenges. In fact, NOAA 
reported that the U.S. had a record-breaking 22 separate severe 
weather events that cost over $1,000,000,000 each in 2020. 
Taken together, they caused $95,000,000,000 in damage and 262 
fatalities. Unfortunately, the RISA network does not cover the 
entire U.S., meaning communities affected by severe weather-
related storms lack the tools and resources to plan 
accordingly.
    Last year's House report included a provision that directs 
NOAA to expand geographic coverage of this program with a long-
term goal of providing comprehensive decision support services 
and tools to local decision-makers in all states and 
territories. Can you tell us how you plan to comply with this 
language?
    Dr. Volz. Thank you, ma'am, for the question.
    So the RISA is, as you described, an excellent avenue, a 
mechanism for NOAA's expertise to be communicated to local and 
regional users, and it is under-utilized--it is not under-
utilized, it is under-resourced, and can be expanded to provide 
a much better service. It is an essential key first contact, if 
you will, between the potential applications of our 
environmental data to the communities that need those.
    So we expect and as we have been identifying in our 
addressing the climate challenge has been identified by the 
Administration to propose and to present expansions of that 
RISA capacity to cover the U.S. more efficiently and 
effectively. But it is a big ask and there is a lot of 
information and a lot of requirements or requests for our 
services across the country.
    And, Nicole, would you like to add to that?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Steve. Just very briefly.
    I think the RISAs provide an excellent example of how NOAA 
has been in the climate services for a long time. The RISAs 
have been around about 40 years. They are just one of our real 
boots on the ground with universities and communities where we 
do a lot of listening to find out what people need in terms of 
climate services.
    So I am very happy to speak more with you about the RISAs. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you so much. One more question.
    When it comes to making hard decisions about 
infrastructure, low-income communities and communities of color 
often get the short end of the stick. More than other 
communities, they will need help from NOAA in accessing climate 
services. What are NOAA's plans on issues of environmental 
justice as outlined in President Biden's Executive Order 13990 
to recognize this disproportionate threat of climate change to 
some of these communities?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Congresswoman. And I am privileged 
to be the Department of Commerce's representative to the White 
House's newly established Environmental Justice Interagency 
Committee, so I am very much invested in this work.
    NOAA is invested across the board in protecting all lives 
and all property. And I will just give you an example of how 
NOAA can serve between the data collection and the services to 
communities.
    So, for example, we announced an expansion of our Heat 
Islands Mapping Tool this week, where cities around the country 
that have hard-paved structures and lots of buildings, we are 
finding through our data the ability to actually identify 
locations where the heat index is five to ten degrees higher. 
This is really important for folks with respiratory ailments 
like asthma and our elderly populations in urban communities, 
and we are working with cities to help them identify these 
areas, so that they can make decisions about how to protect 
those under-served populations.
    That is just one example, but NOAA is quite invested in 
providing our services to all Americans.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
    The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Volz 
and Ms. LeBoeuf, thank you for being here today.
    NOAA is a global leader in climate research, observing all 
the world's oceans and major seas. I am proud to represent the 
Mississippi Gulf Coast, which is home to NOAA's National Data 
Buoy Center.
    For my colleagues that don't know, the center records 
crucial ocean data and from hurricane alerts to safeguarding 
our wildlife. Southern Mississippi knows the value of accurate 
and timely climate research.
    So could you speak to the important contributions that the 
National Data Buoy Center makes to NOAA's climate research?
    Dr. Volz. Yeah, thank you, sir. And as well as the National 
Data Buoy Center, Stennis is also the location of one of the 
National Centers for Environmental Information, which is a part 
of our information services.
    So the buoy system and the Buoy Center, those are essential 
ocean observation components. The United States NOAA provides 
more than 50 percent of the global ocean-observing buoy systems 
around the world which provide that critical three-dimensional 
look of what is happening in the oceans. We can observe the 
oceans from space or from airplanes from the surface of it, but 
it is those buoys that provide that in-place measurements of 
salinity, temperature, and other chemical and biological 
factors that are so essential to our understanding of the 
oceans as a system.
    So the Buoy Center is a critical part of our global 
observing system.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for your response.
    Last year, I was proud to speak on the House floor in 
support of Senate Bill 2981, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration Commission Officer Corps Amendments 
Act of 2020, and that President Trump signed the bill into law, 
allowing for NOAA Corps to expand and enhance the uniformed 
service.
    In what capacity does the NOAA Corps aid in your efforts 
related to climate research and data gathering?
    Dr. Volz. I will take that one. And, again, thank you for 
the question and for the endorsement of the act which allowed 
us to expand the NOAA Corps.
    The NOAA Corps, one of the uniformed services of the United 
States, is really a critical element of that. Because we do 
observe from the bottom of the ocean to the surface of the sun, 
a big part of that is the oceans overall, and NOAA Corps and 
the ships that we provide, the fleet that we have, provide a 
critical service in many aspects of the NOAA mission.
    I mentioned already the NOAA observations from the buoys, 
often our NOAA ships are the ones who are servicing those, but 
also it is the field campaigns that the NOAA Corps provides in 
calibration of measurements from space, in situ measurements 
working to support fishery services, and global observations as 
they work around the country, around the world. They also 
provide the bathymetric measurements that we need for 
understanding the 3D structure on the coast and on the bottom 
of the ocean, which are critical elements of our ocean services 
and our port management and maintenance as well.
    So the Corps are our key to--a key element of our global 
system. And the recent fleet recapitalization that started a 
few years ago is moving us to refresh and revitalize the NOAA 
fleet, another key element that makes that so we have that 
sustained resource for the coming decades.
    Mr. Palazzo. All right. Thank you, sir.
    Members of the NOAA Corps are the ones who operate the nine 
aircrafts and 15 vessels in NOAA's growing fleet. During our 
hurricane, they deployed on missions into the storm and, 
immediately after hurricanes, they deployed to assess damage 
and map out debris in channels to open our ports back up. All 
these activities are essential to my district and other 
members' districts around the Nation, especially last year 
where the end of the hurricane season saw numerous back-to-back 
hurricanes in the Gulf, impacting our maritime economy, our 
ecosystems, people, and property.
    What work is NOAA undertaken to better predict hurricanes? 
And also is NOAA partnering with research universities on this?
    Dr. Volz. Yes. On the second question, yes, we are 
partnering. On the first part of the question, what work are we 
doing, you identified, sir, the importance of our airplanes, 
our aircraft to fly into to diagnose hurricanes as they are 
happening. That is both an immediate aspect because it helps us 
determine the intensity of a storm for that day and that event, 
but it also has a long-term research aspect because combining 
those in-place measurements from the planes with satellite data 
at the same time allow us to interpret more efficiently and 
effectively the entire system of a hurricane.
    So the research that goes on--and we have had a long 
history of many years at our National Hurricane Center working 
with academia as well in the global work environment to 
understand better not just the landfall, which we have 
predicted very well of hurricanes, but the intensification and 
the variations of hurricanes.
    And one thing we have noted with climate change is that the 
rapid intensification of hurricanes, as we saw in the last year 
in particular, is a feature that is changing the 
characteristics of hurricanes. And that is an important piece 
of what we need to understand to know how quickly it can go 
from a Cat 1 to a Cat 5, our historical models are not 
sufficient and that is where the additional research, 
additional airplane flights and satellite observations, and the 
research with them is essential.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for your responses.
    My time is expired. I will yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
    At this time, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Crist, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
to our witnesses for being here today to discuss a topic that 
is critically important to my home state of Florida.
    As I am sure you are aware, Tampa Bay recently suffered an 
environmental disaster when a leak was discovered in a holding 
pond of an abandoned phosphate plant known as Piney Point. That 
leak prompted evacuations of the surrounding area over concerns 
the entire holding pond could breach and flood the area with 
nearly 500 million gallons of toxic waste water. Thankfully, 
the worst-case scenario appears to have been averted.
    Unfortunately, in the process of preventing a full breach, 
the State of Florida discharged over 200 million gallons of 
toxic wastewater into Tampa Bay, raising concerns for health 
and environmental impacts.
    I am particularly worried about a potential outbreak of 
harmful algal blooms and asked NOAA in a letter last week to 
step up monitoring in the area. Can you provide me with an 
update on what monitoring efforts the agency is undertaking, as 
well as discuss any other work NOAA is doing in relation to 
Piney Point?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Congressman Crist, for not only 
your interest in Piney Point, but for your letter of concern. 
We very much appreciate that.
    So, yes, we were aware of the Piney Point situation and 
began posting imagery of harmful algal bloom in that proximity 
and been providing regular updates on that.
    I understand that the State of Florida may be closing that 
facility, but that is not the end of harmful algal blooms, as 
you know, across the State of Florida, from Indian River 
Lagoon, where they just keep kind of coming, and to the Tampa 
Bay area.
    NOAA provides a range of operational harmful algal bloom 
forecasts around the country. It is still a service that we are 
learning how to deliver. It is kind of like weather forecasting 
with creatures. So it requires a lot of understanding of our 
ecology, as well as NOAA's observational capabilities in terms 
of currents and temperature, and how long heat is held in the 
water and that kind of thing.
    So in Pinellas County, for example, we have a near real-
time forecast, we work with local officials there so that they 
know when to open and close beaches; we work with tribal 
nations in the Northwest on harmful algal blooms that can 
affect their shellfish harvests; in the Great Lakes where it 
affects drinking water, it is also very important.
    This is an area of growth I see for NOAA and an area where 
we would need increased investment to more robustly 
operationalize around the country.
    Mr. Crist. Great. Well, thank you.
    Do you think the incident at Piney Point could make the 
upcoming red tide season worse?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. We are always concerned when excess nutrients 
go in the water where our trust species are. I won't speculate 
on the Piney Point contribution to this year's harmful algal 
bloom events because there are many other factors.
    Harmful algal blooms are events that are difficult to 
directly tie to climate change, but what we do know is many of 
the conditions that are good for harmful algal blooms are 
increasing as a result of climate change such as longer 
durations of warm water, et cetera.
    So there are a lot of dynamics that go along and we will be 
watching very closely.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you. And I am very grateful for and 
appreciative of NOAA's red tide forecasts, as well as the 
expansion of red tide respiratory forecasts, which was 
developed and tested in my home of Pinellas County.
    Looking ahead to the warmer months and keeping Piney Point 
in mind, is NOAA well positioned to continue issuing these 
forecasts as the water warms and the threat of red tide 
increases?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, sir, we are and we plan to continue to do 
that, and outreach to the state.
    Mr. Crist. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Crist.
    At this time, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing. I want to thank Dr. Volz and Ms. LeBoeuf for 
appearing.
    Dr. Volz, you are performing the duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Environmental Observation and Prediction, so I am 
going to direct these questions to you.
    The Biden administration requested a $6.9 billion budget 
from NOAA, it is an increase of $1.4 billion over fiscal year 
2021 levels. So it is a 25-percent increase, approximately. So 
to dig in a little bit on past performance, I am looking at a 
report from the Department of Commerce's OIG site dated June 
2nd, 2020, titled, ``The Department needs to improve oversight 
practices to close out contract files by complying with federal 
regulations and department requirements.''
    As you know, the Commerce Department spends approximately 
$3,000,000,000 annually on contracts to procure goods and 
services, many of those are directed to NOAA. And once 
performance under those contracts have concluded, agencies are 
required to complete a series of steps to close out the 
contracts. It is an important administrative procedures, and 
involves verifying that goods and services paid for by the 
taxpayers were provided as intended, validating final costs and 
payments, and freeing excess funds for possible use elsewhere.
    What they found--this is a year ago--in NOAA, contracts 
were not closed within required time frames. One contract in 
particular took 13 years to close. And that was because they 
didn't have the data necessary; once they did get the data, it 
was closed in 60 days. Contract files lacked evidence that key 
contract closeout steps were completed, resulting in 
approximately $288,000,000 that could not be verified. That is 
not all at NOAA, that is in three different Commerce agencies, 
but NOAA contract files were not always properly retained.
    And they took a review of a sampling of 33 NOAA contracts. 
The results were that, of those 33, 17 had missing 
documentation of contract physical completion, 19 had 
inadequate or missing invoices, and one had incorrect or 
missing contract completion statements.
    There were some recommendations made. I could go into the 
problems more, but what I will say that the recommendations, I 
just want to confirm that these are being done, and you can 
come in afterward with data to show me that these are being 
done. Commerce recommended that NOAA; one, publish a list of 
all expired contracts orderly for closeout review and action, 
and monitor closeout compliance with regulations through its 
biannual acquisition management reviews; work toward reducing 
its current backlog; issue additional guidance and training. In 
fact, there is a promise from NOAA to create contract closeout 
training slides, distribute them, and verify that its 
contracting staff completes this training.
    And so I just want to make sure, can you tell me with 
certainty that those have occurred a year later after this 
report and how things are going with this record that is 
somewhat disconcerting given the request by the Administration 
for a 25 percent increase in your budget?
    Dr. Volz. Thank you, sir. And it is a fair question.
    We treat the management and expenditure of government funds 
very seriously within NOAA. And I can't speak specifically to 
those steps that you mentioned in that report, but I will get 
back to you right away on that.
    I will say from NESDIS perspective, I know most of those 
dollars--we are the largest organization within NOAA with 
contracts, satellites are big and expensive, and we definitely 
treat the contract actions very seriously.
    And I will note that in the last 5 years--when I came to 
NOAA in 2014, our two major programs were on the GAO's hit list 
for the high-risk programs in government and both of which have 
come off that in 2017 and 2018 because of the progress we made 
and the improvements we made. And last year, in fact, we gave 
back $735,000,000 against the expected cost on our polar 
satellite program because of improvements in, and in program 
management and execution.
    So we definitely treat seriously the issues, the execution 
of the funds, and I will be happy to get back to you with those 
questions of those specific ones. Those are reasonable requests 
that were made and we work with the OAG all the time. And I 
will get back to you on that, sir.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    At this point, the chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Hawaii, Mr. Case, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and aloha to your 
witnesses.
    Thank you so much, first of all, for the continued 
partnership of NOAA with Hawaii and the Pacific across a broad 
range of activities, from the NOAA research vessels to world-
class oceanographic research throughout the Pacific, to the 
Coastal Zone Management Program, Sea Grant, Coastal Resilience, 
Pacific Risk Management 'Ohana, PRMI--or PRiMO, I guess it is, 
Atmospheric Baseline Observatories. There is a very active 
scope of activities in Hawaii and throughout the Pacific, and I 
want to be able to continue to help NOAA and work with NOAA on 
all of those activities.
    I just want to focus on a couple of different areas. First 
of all, thank you very much for your testimony that recognized 
the importance of the Atmospheric Baseline Observatories, Mauna 
Loa being one of the most critical in the entire world from the 
perspective of climate change. And speaking to the issue that 
was raised by the ranking member of the accuracy of climate 
change assessments over time, we rely on our Atmospheric 
Baseline Observatories for the basic scientific data on a 
longitudinal basis. And so those are critical.
    And we did in fact add to the capital improvement side of 
the observatories throughout our country in the last fiscal 
year 2021 budget, but my understanding is that there is still a 
capital shortfall backed up, a backlog of improvements that are 
needed at somewhere in the range of $10,000,000, which, you 
know, when you take a look at--$10,000,000 is a lot of money, 
but when you take a look at everything that rides on the 
accuracy of the information over time, the cost benefit is 
just--there is no comparison.
    And so I am asking directly whether the budget does 
anticipate an acceleration of capital improvement catch-up on 
our Atmospheric Baseline Observatories, or whether you think 
that we should in this committee consider doing it ourselves if 
you are not doing it already in the President's budget?
    Dr. Volz. Well, thank you, sir, for the question. And, as 
the satellite guy, I fully agree with you that the value of the 
ground system, the ground measurements and observations, those 
baseline measurements are absolutely essential. A picture from 
space means nothing if it is not anchored in real world, in the 
actual data from those ground systems, including the Mauna Loa 
Observatory and many others.
    So one of the things we looked at as we looked at how to 
address the climate challenge presented by the Administration 
is how the whole system of observations are--what the health 
and reliability are of all of those and where they need to be 
made more robust to provide that continuing long-term data 
system that is essential for climate research.
    So I am confident--I am speaking now not as the NESDIS 
head, the satellite guy, but as the Acting Assistant Secretary 
for all observation and prediction--that all of those 
components, including the in situ measurements that you 
mentioned, those buoys that were discussed earlier, and the 
satellites are brought to the same, to the right level of 
readiness, so that they are able to provide those data and 
services.
    So I am confident we will be addressing some of the 
questions related to the reliability of our ground systems, 
yes.
    Mr. Case. So I appreciate that, and I appreciate the 
general support. Specifically, do you know whether the 
President's budget includes or factored an increase in the 
paying down the backlog of capital improvements in those ground 
observatories.
    Mr. Volz. I can't speak to the specific in the fiscal year 
2022 budget, which will be in the specific fiscal year 2022 
request. But I will repeat what I said is that we have 
prioritized the critical measurements, including some of those 
that you identified as essential for us to meet our climate 
change challenge. So I am confident that we will be meeting the 
need based on the request that we will be submitted to the 
Congress in the near term.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. LeBoeuf, can you speak to the NOAA marine sanctuaries?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Absolutely, sir.
    Mr. Case. Okay. In the fiscal year 2021 appropriations 
bill, Congress instructed NOAA to report back on 
Papahanaumokuakea's conversion to a sanctuary. Can you tell me 
where the status of that review and report is?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. Thank you for that question. We are 
working on implementing that language by conducting internal 
reviews about how we might conduct additional public 
engagement. For one, as you know, the designation of a monument 
is fundamentally different from that of a sanctuary, because 
with a sanctuary we have extensive public engagement processes. 
And so we are looking over those processes now to see where we 
might be able to get public input throughout.
    We are also looking at Papahanaumokuakea relative to the 
National Marine Sanctuary Act, and how we look at resource 
management and conservation. So it is underway. I would be 
happy to provide a more detailed update for you if you would 
like that after the hearing. But we are looking forward to 
getting further along in that. Thank you for asking.
    Mr. Case. I would very much appreciate that. And 
congratulations on your pronunciation by the way.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Case. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. He never congratulates me on my 
pronunciations of Hawaiian names, just so you--so it is a high 
honor you just got, Ms. LeBoeuf. The chair recognizes for 5 
minutes the gentleman from California, Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses. Very intriguing. The engineer in me wants to go look 
at all the data and have the discussions on the predictive 
analysis, and how do we sort of minimize the divergence on the 
paths forward, and solutions, in the out years especially.
    I am from California, a region that is very susceptible to 
wildfires. Not just our state, but our region, seems to have 
gotten progressively worse. I am not sure it is all attributed 
to climate change, as much as it is to other policy decisions 
and lack of investments in other areas as well. It is probably 
all aggravating each other.
    In researching and doing some background on this particular 
committee hearing, I learned that a 2,000 pound pine tree 
actually retains roughly 20 million BTUs, which is actually 
about one and a half million BTUs more than 2,000 pounds of 
coal. And so these fuel sources are everywhere. Obviously in 
our state and our region in the west.
    What is the total contribution to CO2 emissions from 
wildfires, whether manmade or natural wildfires? Do we have any 
data on that?
    Dr. Volz. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. We do, 
but I don't have it on the tip of my tongue. So that is a good 
question to ask.
    Mr. Garcia. I think that is an interesting--I have got to 
imagine it is a pretty significant contribution given the size 
of some of these fires and duration.
    Dr. Volz. It is a contribution. The significance would be 
something I can get back to you and say. I would say, though, 
that we do see that if you look at the CO2 concentration in the 
atmosphere occurs over time, we have severe and not severe 
wildfire seasons, and they are very hard to pick out on that 
global picture. So in terms of the global contribution to over 
400 parts per million in CO2, it is probably not as--it is not 
as significant as the other factors we see from our carbon 
environment basically.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay.
    Dr. Volz. But I can get back to you with the specific 
details.
    Mr. Garcia. I would love to see that, if we can, and 
specifically how it affects our part, both in the problem side 
and the solution side.
    As far as helping us mitigate and fight the fires, I know 
your assets and some of your predictive modeling. And I have 
supported the artificial intelligence elements that have been 
going into helping model the firefighting, as well as other 
things that you use AI for. But in your estimation, what do you 
think is one of the more effective ways to mitigate, sort of 
break down or minimize the total potential energy right now in 
the fire triangle when it comes to especially these wildfire 
problems that we are facing?
    Dr. Volz. So the----
    Mr. Garcia. At least going back to the environment, I 
should say, right. That is kind of where I am heading.
    Dr. Volz. There are many factors which go into a wildfire 
event, not just the fact that a fire has started, but what is 
the precondition of the environment? Are the trees dry? Has 
there been a long term drought? Was there recent rainfall or 
not?
    So one of the things that we do at NOAA very well is look 
at a fire is not an event, it is an occasion that takes many--
it is years in the making and months in the follow-up. So we 
monitor the health of the environment and the ecosystem to get 
an idea of the--and our fire forecast warning to actually take 
into account the sensitivity or the vulnerability of an area to 
increased fire danger.
    So to mitigate it, there is little we can do on a global 
scale, but identifying the precursor conditions and how a 
wildfire progresses once it has occurred is an area of active 
research that NOAA is a participant in working with USGS, the 
Forest Service, and other actors to understand the dynamics of 
a fire event, as I said, which takes place over days and weeks, 
and the recovery from it afterwards. So it is not just the 
fire, but it is the floods and--it is the landslide sensitivity 
post-fire event that we, with our water monitoring itself, 
allow for that whole of environment view on how to deal with 
it, how to prepare for it, and how to mitigate the impact once 
it occurs.
    Mr. Garcia. Got you. And given that the overall 
contribution of the, we will look at the data obviously, but 
given that the overall contribution to the CO2 emissions from 
wildfires is relatively low, I will say relatively, just based 
on what you said earlier, is there value to having things like 
prescribed burns in optimal conditions that we can control to 
help with the forest management, to help get rid of the dead 
tress, the dead shrubs, and lead turn it before the conditions 
actually become less favorable in the peak of the fire season?
    Dr. Volz. I have a personal opinion on that, but not a 
professional one. It is not an area that I have studied, and I 
know there are a lot of pros and cons in those prescribed 
burns, and they have been done in the past, and not done in 
other areas. So I really can't--I am not qualified, sir, 
unfortunately to give you a professional judgment on that. 
Sorry.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. I think that is important, I think 
especially as we do the predictive modeling and the weather 
around it, to be able to have the assets to figure out when the 
optimal conditions are to do that. That is a viable solution 
that our firefighters. Thank you, Dr. Volz. And I am out of 
time, but I would like that data that you have if you have 
characterized the contribution that CO2 emissions from 
wildfires. I would love to see that. Thank you.
    Dr. Volz. Will do, sir. And I would say that the prescribed 
burns are one factor of wildfire planning, mitigation, 
etcetera, which are part of our study activities, working with 
our partners in other agencies. So it is a piece of the puzzle 
that we need to help resolve.
    Mr. Garcia. Excellent. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia for that important 
line of questioning, and let's keep talking about that.
    The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Trone, is recognized for 5 
minutes. You are on mute, Mr. Trone.
    Mr. Trone. There we go. Okay. You released me. Thank you. I 
appreciate it.
    It has been brought to my attention that the NOAA office in 
Gaithersburg, Maryland, which is in my district, is going to be 
closed, and they are moving the personnel to the Silver Spring 
office. Not too far away. And the question is really about for 
these federal workers post-pandemic, what is your plan as far 
as remote working? What will be the new operating model at 
NOAA? Have you got any guidance from the GSA or the 
administration about how we are going to work in this new 
environment? That is what our team members are asking.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Congressman Trone, thank you for your 
question. Yes, the pandemic has taught us a lot about remote 
work, telework, all versions of doing things differently. We 
are still at NOAA developing plans for maximum flexibility for 
employees when we do--when we are able to safely come back to 
the office. Those plans are still undergoing a lot of 
discussion and review, and of course as you said, we will be 
bearing in mind input from GSA and the Department of Commerce 
and others.
    I don't have a clear answer for you there. I think 
throughout our conversations we do want to continue to maximize 
flexibility, because we just don't have a good sense of how 
every single individual has been impacted, and will continue to 
be impacted by the pandemic.
    So stay tuned for more. I would be happy to follow up with 
you when we do have our plans more laid down.
    Mr. Trone. That would be great. Shoot us the plan once you 
have got it brought to fruition.
    Next quick question. Chesapeake Bay, crucial to Maryland's 
economy, culture, what fiscal year 2022 resources do you need 
to do your part in protecting the health of the Bay?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, thank you, sir. I actually have crabcakes 
in my fridge right now. So the Chesapeake Bay is very important 
to programs across NOAA, and the health of the Bay, of course, 
is something we are very in tune with. Projects that we have 
supported in the past include the retrieval of derelict fishing 
gear, crab pots in particular. It is not just the fishery, but 
other animals there and the environment. We work on restoration 
projects in Chesapeake Bay, as well as working with the state 
and local officials on how to better assess those fisheries and 
make sure they stay sustainable.
    All of those would be good fodder for investment in fiscal 
year 2022 and beyond. We always want to do more for the 
Chesapeake Bay. And so as our plans seal up on that, and as the 
budget gets more finalized, we would be happy to work with you 
on complimenting what we have in store.
    Mr. Trone. Okay. Let's keep in touch, and we are happy to 
support you there. It is crucial to Maryland.
    Last question, the National Mesonet Program has been a key 
public/private partnership. The cost to effectively leverage 
all the commercial weather data, which then helps improve the 
Nation's ability to look at severe weather forecasting, long 
range modeling. Resources again. What does NOAA need in fiscal 
year 2022 to make sure this program continues, because it is 
definitely very important in a public/private nature?
    Dr. Volz. Thank you, sir. Yes. The Mesonet program is 
another one of those critical ground systems, ground 
observation systems which are part of the puzzle of how we 
observe the overall environment. And it is a critical part of 
the National Weather Service input for their operational needs, 
and is a great example of public/private partnership, as you 
observed, and how it can--how we are bringing all assets to the 
table to understand and address our climate challenges.
    So in our fiscal year 2022 budget, it will be identified, 
and you will see details on that, and I do see it as, and 
expect to be, a sustained portion, long term of our plans for 
integrating public and private data. Just one example. We do 
that in other places, both in the oceans and even in space, as 
we are looking to make best use of potential private assets, 
commercial assets to integrate them into our observing system.
    We have to do that carefully to make sure the data are 
integrated properly and they are--as the question earlier about 
the quality of private data, but we make sure that any services 
that are provided by NOAA validate all of the data that go into 
it so that it can be trusted as the NOAA product, and not 
something that has mixed value. So we work very carefully with 
the private sector in making sure their data are accurate and 
reliable.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, both. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone. At this point, we are 
going to start a second round of questioning. As I look at you 
on my screen, Dr. Volz and Ms. LeBoeuf, you are both holding up 
pretty well under the withering fire of this subcommittee, so 
we are going to subject you to another round of it.
    I also want to encourage you, you have said a little bit 
along this line before, but I want to encourage the both of 
you, if there is more information you want to provide us as it 
occurs to you after you leave this hearing, time does not end 
at the end of this hearing, and please avail yourselves of our 
offices, and let us know of further information that you think 
would be helpful in more fully answering some of these 
questions. Will you do that?
    Dr. Volz. Happy to do that, sir.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. Good. Now, I was talking before 
about the need for climate services, particularly by governors, 
and mayors, and municipalities. They are the ones on the ground 
making these hard decisions about infrastructure investments. 
And as I said in my opening statement, in Wilkes-Barre, 
Pennsylvania, in my district, they had to decide just how high 
to build the levees to protect the citizens of Wilkes-Barre 
against the raging waters of the Susquehanna River, the 
sometimes raising waters.
    They thought they got it right, but they didn't have the 
information when they built it back then to plan for the 
future. We cannot keep letting this happen, because it is an 
expensive mistake. Each extra foot, of course, when you are 
building a levee reduces risk, but also increases construction 
costs immeasurably. Having support from NOAA and your world 
class science that can certify how much risk each extra foot 
would alleviate, I would imagine that would certainly allow 
mayors across the country to make more informed decisions while 
better educating the public as well.
    Now, as you probably know, I have a bill called the Built 
to Last Act, which directs NOAA to establish forward looking 
climate data to support standard setting organizations, local 
governments, and private citizens so they can all make smart 
and informed decisions, like the one in Wilkes-Barre.
    So here is the question, are you concerned that a lack of 
clear, authoritative climate data, and forward-looking 
information about climate risks leaves the door open for 
Americans to make uninformed, regrettable decisions really, 
which could expose them to unnecessary risk and cost? And what 
role can NOAA plan in ensuring that entities such as standard 
setting organizations have the forward-looking climate data 
that they need to create the building standards that we can all 
rely on?
    Dr. Volz. So the short answer is yes, we are concerned. 
Making decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate data can be 
worse than making no decision. And we are very focused on 
making sure that providing, as we said before, that our data 
sets, our data and information are well validated and 
calibrated, but we are somewhat underresourced in that. And 
answering the questions of every individual community is 
something that we are ready to scale up to do, but we don't 
have the charter for all of those service deliveries, or the 
resources to make it happen at the level that is really needed.
    We do work with partners, but we need still to enhance our 
ability to do that more efficiently and effectively.
    Mr. Cartwright. And I want you not to be bashful. Contact 
us. Contact my office. And let us know exactly what resources 
you need to pull off that mission. I think it is vital. And I 
think that it is money that will save--it will be well spent. 
It will be money that saves much more money down the road so 
that we don't make dumb construction decisions in our 
infrastructure building. And I want to give you a chance to 
weight in, too, Ms. LeBoeuf, on that.
    Dr. Volz. Go ahead, Nicole, please.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yeah. Thank you, Chairman Cartwright. And 
thank you for your leadership on the Built to Last Act, and for 
acknowledging NOAA's important role to provide that forward 
looking information. Thank you also for the language in our 
appropriations bill of similar ilk.
    This is the ideal role that NOAA should be playing. For the 
first time in human history, we should be planning our 
construction for changing conditions and not static conditions. 
And so there is no better agency than NOAA to provide the 
predictive capability so that others can do the building 
standards, and others can provide more direction on, say, 
regulations and how we build, and where we build.
    But as my colleague, Dr. Volz, said, if NOAA is not the one 
providing that data, the confusion and the uncertainty, 
particularly when it comes to the folks on the ground is just 
going to increase. So I really look forward to working with you 
on that bill, and any follow-up in that regard, because that is 
a very, very important role for NOAA to play.
    Mr. Cartwright. And Dr. Volz, I cut you off. What were you 
going to say?
    Dr. Volz. No. I actually almost cut off Nicole, and I 
didn't want to do that. I was going to say that one of the 
examples of increased performance is how often we update our 
standards. You probably have seen we are going to be releasing 
the new norms, normals for temperature and environment, which 
we do every 10 years over a 30 year period. So we have the new 
norms coming out in the next month for the 1990 to 2020 period, 
which defines some of those standards. But that is just on the 
global and large scale. There are dozens of smaller scales, 
like what is the river norms for your region in Wilkes-Barre? 
And what are the coastal norms around the country? And those 
take effort and time, and they are--those are places where 
certainly defining a standard set of refresh of critical 
environmental parameters are the essential building blocks for 
communities to build better as they plan for their 
infrastructure development.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you for that. In my role as 
chairman, I certainly will continue to push you to provide 
climate services and forward-looking climate data so the Nation 
can plan its infrastructure and other initiatives. Well, my 
time has expired. I would like to recognize the ranking member, 
Mr. Aderholt, for five minutes.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As was mentioned in 
the testimony, the National Water Center at the campus of the 
University of Alabama is very essential to development of the 
national water model, which is being used in part for flood 
mapping and inland areas, and has been expanded to coastal 
areas. What is the status of the new hydrologic cooperative 
institute with the understanding the fiscal year 2021 included 
$1 million to create this institute with an emphasis on 
hydrology? So could you give us a little bit of a status of the 
new institute, and where do you plan to invest these funds?
    Dr. Volz. Thank you, sir, for the--go ahead. Nicole, 
please, you go first.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yeah, just very quickly. Thank you for 
requesting that we pursue that cooperative institute. The 
National Ocean Service, Weather Service, and the Office of 
Atmospheric Research are working closely together to ensure 
that the funds and the resources are available to begin that 
work, including providing resources to high performance 
computing, which is absolutely essential to the success of that 
and other predictive modeling capabilities.
    That is just the tactical update, and we are working very 
hard to get that stood up, and really welcome the opportunity 
to provide you with more updates as that goes forward.
    Mr. Aderholt. And what about investing the money, the 
funds?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. The establishment of the cooperative 
institute, and again in the sharing of high performance 
computing capability will be some of the first priorities for 
those funds. We do have a weakness along the coast. Some people 
call it the white space when it comes to hydrological modeling. 
And so this is an area of priority for us, and we really 
appreciate having the opportunity to get some of that stuff 
going.
    Mr. Aderholt. Given the water/energy/climate nexus, how do 
you see the new cooperative institute supporting NOAA's efforts 
on the climate?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Climate and weather are largely different in 
time scales and in time frames. And so these flooding events 
that we are trying to better understand when the fresh water 
and the salt water come together are a part of our climate 
modeling and services. So it doesn't always have to have the 
word climate in the name to be part of our climate services, 
and we consider the national water model core to those efforts.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you. The National Weather Service 
has had several issues over the last few months in 
disseminating key weather data, forecasts, advisories, and 
warnings to local weather offices, partner agencies, and to the 
public that are critical for protecting life and property. What 
is NOAA's plan to ensure that the central processing and 
dissemination functions are appropriately resources to provide 
a resilient IT and communications architecture that provides a 
reliable delivery of products and services?
    Dr. Volz. Thank you, sir, for the question. And yes, we 
have had some issues with--some challenges over the last couple 
of months, but we recognize within the weather service and 
within NOAA the very critical nature of--and uninterrupted 
delivery with the 99.99 percent on base, ready for delivery on 
a regular basis.
    We are focusing efforts now on improving the reliability of 
the IDS, the IDP, the information dissemination activities 
within the National Weather Service. And we expect that will 
show up, as well as a continued reinvestment to secure the 
reliability of that service in the coming years. So we are 
focusing on it and you should see that as an indication of 
priority in all of our communications coming forward, including 
the budget.
    Mr. Aderholt. And as I mentioned in my opening comments, 
and your testimony illustrates the array of climate services 
that NOAA provides is rather vast, and I am wondering about how 
they all fit together so that they are coordinating instead of 
overlapping. And so the public knows where they can turn.
    Years ago, there was a push for a national climate service, 
and that was presumably to try to address some of these same 
concerns. Does NOAA have some of the same concerns that I 
mentioned? And if so, could they be addressed through a 
national climate service?
    Dr. Volz. I will start with the answer, and I know Nicole 
will want to weigh in as well. So turning climate science into 
services is really what NOAA does. It is--what NOAA has done 
when we created it in 1970 is an ocean and atmosphere, 
recognizing the coupling of the system. And now that climate 
science. Then we just called it coupled systems. But it is key 
to us, and a key part--we are the only agency in the federal 
government with the word prediction in its mission statement. 
So we recognize that climate prediction and climate services 
are part of not just the past history, but preparing 
communities and the Nation for what is coming, with some 
accuracy and precision on those predictions of the upcoming 
conditions.
    So at the NOAA level, it is part of every line office and 
every organization to have a piece of that puzzle. But you 
identified a key part, which is how are we coordinating and 
avoiding overlap. And we have numerous examples of where when 
the different lines of NOAA, the line offices as we call them, 
work together, I will just give one or two examples.
    For example, on digital elevation mapping, which is done by 
satellites and ships for the bathymetry and airplanes for 
lidars, those data come from NOAA and NCIS, NCEI, which is part 
of NESDIS, but are used by OAR and by the ocean service for 
their use of that for service delivery in doing coastal zone 
mapping and the like, and floods, and ports.
    When we talk about the National Information Drought 
Service, NIDS, is again observations that are shared then with 
National Weather Service and with the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, and the USGS for the implementation of that.
    So we have many examples of where the observations, the 
integration, and then the dissemination are shared by different 
parts of NOAA, with our national, federal, and other partners 
to make that happen. Now, the boots on the ground that my 
colleague mentioned are where we have the first touch with most 
of the communities. And I will ask Nicole to follow up on how 
we address the potential overlap in the regions. Nicole?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. Thank you, Steve. Congressman Aderholt, 
so as our understanding of the interconnectedness of the earth 
and the ocean to our environmental, someone said earlier, what 
the earth is doing, as that has improved over time, NOAA has 
also become more integrated. More of the work we do now is 
organized across NOAA, whether it is fire weather or detection 
of coral bleaching, understanding climate impacts on fisheries. 
Those require a whole of NOAA approach.
    There are some things we still do. Where just one part of 
us works on something, but more than ever we are integrated and 
we have, from the top down, leadership that keeps an eye on 
that, and sets the strategic direction for that integration. 
From the bottom up, staff are finding new connections all the 
time. I think that is just a natural evolution. We do need to 
continue to make sure we don't duplicate.
    One of the challenges that we are highly distributed. Those 
boots on the ground are all over our country, providing 
services through the food chain from federal, all the way down 
to local communities. And so it is a constant and regular 
effort to make sure we are doing the things as efficient and as 
cost effective as possible. But we are more integrated than we 
have ever been, and I really appreciate your question.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I see my time is up. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Palazzo, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mississippi's coasts 
are impacted by numerous coastal hazards, including hurricanes 
and other major coastal storms, storm surge, inundation 
flooding, and subsidence in erosion, coupled with sea-level 
rise. Mississippi also has valuable coastal infrastructure, as 
most coastal areas across the Nation. How do coastal zone 
management grants assist states and their local coastal 
communities to address these coastal hazards, and to protect 
important coastal infrastructure?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, sir, for your question. As you 
know, the coasts are experiencing climate impacts more acutely 
and more rapidly than anywhere else. And this is where we have 
such strong drivers of our economy and our way of life 
throughout the United States.
    Coastal zone experts in NOAA provide a wide range of 
services to state coastal zone managers, as well as elected 
officials and others. Just an example, we provide a suite of 
trainings in risk management and risk communication, and trade 
offs, so that folks can talk to the people in their communities 
about these things, and have informed conversations.
    We providing for sighting for industry, advice, and tools 
so that people can look at--on the internet, they can look at 
where the risk for sea level rise is, and where the 
socioeconomic contributors to those local areas are so they 
can, again, think about those trade offs. Those are just a 
couple of examples.
    We do place based science, and educational engagement with 
communities. But you are absolutely right. The coasts are 
experiencing kind of everything right now. So a lot of our 
focus is increasing there.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. LeBoeuf. Could you also explain 
how investments in the digital coast programs will help states 
and coastal communities across the country with addressing 
coastal climate impacts? And also, does the digital coast 
program engage with coastal management stakeholders to identify 
the tools and resources needed on the ground to address coastal 
resilience?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. So thank you. The digital coast is 
somewhat unique in that it is based upon a partnership of eight 
organizations outside the federal government that are end 
users, and represent end users of that data. So we listen to 
them and say what is happening on the ground? How are the leads 
changing? What kind of tools should we be providing to the 
public and to associations, and again elected officials?
    And so the digital coast partnership informs that. We 
regularly go through review of the visualization tools to make 
sure they are what folks need. Again, there is kind of 
something for everybody there. They are tailored to a variety 
of needs, whether you are looking at a sea level rise, or 
extreme conditions and extreme hazards, coastal zone concerns 
about vulnerable communities getting left behind and being less 
resilient than others. And we really appreciate being able to 
flex our wings with the digital coast. Now that we have the 
Digital Coast Act, we are looking forward to doing even more 
with that partnership and those tools.
    Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Ms. LeBoeuf. And I appreciate 
both of you all being here to testify in front of our 
committee. And with that, I will yield back to the chairman the 
balance of my time. Thank you all. Have a great day.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo. And Mr. Cline, you 
are recognized for another 5 minutes of questions. Maybe we 
don't have Mr. Cline.
    All right. We are going to move on. Mr. Garcia, you are 
recognized for another 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. There 
was a statement at the beginning of this hearing that intrigued 
me, and then a few data points, and some assertions made 
throughout this that I just wanted to ask about.
    Early on, there was a comment that the five warmest years 
are the five last years. Can you talk about the resources that 
go into those types of assertions, and then how do we measure--
what do we as a nation, or what do our partners around the 
globe actually measure when determining what average 
temperatures are in a given year? And then are there nuances to 
those measurements relative to the technology that we have 
today that may not even have existed 5, or 10, or certainly 50 
years ago?
    I am not questioning it. What I am wondering is from a 
scientific perspective, how are we validating the data sets 
that we have, and how do we collect the data that goes into 
that validation process, if that makes sense?
    Dr. Volz. That does make sense, sir, and it is a great 
question. And it is a fair question. Because to do--to say the 
earth is warmer is something that you have to be very accurate 
and very careful about how you make that assessment. And that 
is where NOAA really shines, in its long term track records. 
And we have environmental data records, some going back 
hundreds of years. So how do you determine that the earth 
average is warming when Alaska may be ten degrees warmer, and 
it may have been colder in Florida in a given year?
    So there is a complex process, but I will describe it in 
some detail is that we use measurements, global measurements. 
It is not just bringing all of the data together and doing a 
temperature average. We look at the regional variation, and 
look at geographically distributed. So what is the average 
temperature of Anchorage look like relative to Anchorage, not 
to other places, and how has that piece changed?
    And they do that grid mapping of the temperature 
measurements around the planet and look at those particular 
localities against historical averages within that locality. 
And even in the oceans, we have--where we have the similar 
distribution of observations. Those buoys we mentioned, which 
are essential pieces of that, ship transits, where you have the 
maritime traffic. We use commercial partnerships where we rely 
on ships to take temperature samplings for us as part of that, 
for the ocean measurements.
    Satellites are a big boom, because they can actually 
measure the whole earth, but they need to be anchored on in 
situ measurements, on mountains and in valleys around the 
world. We rely on all of our partners. We have an international 
network of partner observations, especially for those land 
based measurements around the globe.
    We bring those together, and we constantly revisit the 
temperature offsets or biases that maybe in individual 
measurements. We had an issue ten years ago where the ship 
measurements of the sea surface temperature indicated 
potentially a change in trends. And we had to go back and look 
at specifically how the measurements were made.
    Historically, you would drop a bucket into the water, pick 
up the bucket, and measure the temperature of the bucket. That 
is what we did for hundreds of years. Now we have different 
ways of doing that. How do you mesh that old bucket measurement 
with a thermometer dropped in the ocean. That is an example 
where we had to do that validation.
    So we do that around the world with every data type to see 
if we have continuity of information, even as the measurement 
types change over time. And we do that in a public way. We 
share the methodology. We share the algorithms that are used. 
And they are rigorously assessed and addressed, and validated 
by the public and by the community of scientists who are 
observing and analyzing the data on a regular basis.
    They are called climate data records, which are a key part 
of what NOAA provides through our centers for environmental 
information. And they are available, accessible on the web for 
the world to use and to access, and to critique on a regular 
basis. And we welcome that.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. That is very interesting. Thank you for 
that background. When we say we have got data for hundreds of 
years, I am just intrigued on how we are continuing to mature 
this whole process. And hopefully it is narrowing down sort of 
the circular error probability, or margin of error for future 
predictions and our reactions to them.
    So I will go look at that data. That is all I had. I yield 
back. And I just really thank you both for your testimony today 
and expertise. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. And I congratulate 
our entire panel on both sides of the aisle for a lot of very 
sensible and probing questions. And I thank our witnesses, Dr. 
Volz and Ms. LeBoeuf, for fulsome, comprehensive answers that, 
again, I invite them to supplement when and if they think 
necessary. So thank you all for a pretty good hearing this 
morning, and this hearing is hereby adjourned.
    Dr. Volz. Thank you, sir. And thank you, panel, for 
inviting us.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you so much.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     

                                         Wednesday, April 21, 2021.

OVERSIGHT OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION'S ROLE IN PANDEMIC 
                                RESPONSE

                                WITNESS

DENNIS ALVORD, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC 
    DEVELOPMENT
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. Let us gavel in and begin.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition, for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted 
yourself, I may ask you if you would like the staff to unmute 
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute 
your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired. 
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the 
chair and ranking member; then, members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority; and then, finally, members not present at the time 
the hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    The subcommittee shall come to order.
    Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on the 
Economic Development Administration's, or EDA's, role in the 
response to the pandemic. With us today, we have the acting 
head of EDA, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 
Economic Development, Mr. Dennis Alvord.
    Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Alvord.
    And as the only Federal agency dedicated exclusively to 
economic development, EDA has a critical role in responding to 
the economic crisis that has been brought on by this COVID-19 
pandemic. In 2020, GDP fell by 3.5 percent nationwide and 4.4 
percent in my home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    And while we are already seeing the signs of a strong 
recovery, this pandemic has clearly demonstrated the inequity 
in our economic system. The unemployment rate for those with a 
college degree is only 3.7 percent, whereas it is 8.2 percent 
for those without a high school diploma.
    The overall unemployment number is back down to 6.0 
percent, which does not sound so terrible, except when you note 
that nearly 4.7 million Americans have taken themselves out of 
the workforce since last year.
    In so many ways, it is not just these immediate impacts of 
the pandemic that I am concerned about. If anything, the virus 
has merely highlighted just how increasingly unfair our system 
had become prior to the last year. Our economy is evolving 
rapidly, and when that means new smartphones and Netflix, it is 
great, but I worry about what it means for everyday Americans.
    I think about towns like Carbondale in my district in 
Pennsylvania. During the boom of the anthracite coal industry, 
Carbondale had been a company town that had boomed right along 
with it. But when the coal industry packed up and walked away 
from the city of Carbondale, they left an environmentally 
scarred landscape and an economy that has never come close to 
recovering.
    If a fire started in town, entire blocks would burn down 
for lack of capacity to respond. The housing the coal and rail 
companies had built for their workers were not built to last 
and needed serious investments and upgrades almost immediately. 
And more than that, underground mine fires burned in multiple 
locations throughout the city. Those fires have smoldered even 
into the 21st century, with the Bureau of Abandoned Mines 
putting two more out within the past 5 years.
    The road back for the city of Carbondale has been a long, 
difficult, tedious, and uphill battle with fits and starts of 
success as local leaders have struggled to revitalize the core 
business district and build permanent assets to shore up the 
community and the local economy as well.
    So, when I think about what EDA can do for people, I think 
about Carbondale and the struggle that they have endured and 
what it still needs. And I worry about all these other 
communities that are also struggling, whether it is due to the 
pandemic or other changing economic circumstances in their 
towns often completely beyond their control.
    We can do more to make sure that communities all across 
America not only recover from the pandemic but have real 
economic vitality. It is a smart investment in our people and 
our country that you know will pay huge dividends over time. I 
was proud to help write the American Rescue Plan Act that 
provided an additional $3 billion for EDA to help communities 
respond to the economic fallout of the pandemic.
    I am excited to hear from our witness today about our 
progress in overcoming the immediate hardships brought on by 
COVID and also about how we are investing in long-term 
strategies to support good jobs for all Americans.
    Mr. Alvord, given your background and expertise, it is a 
privilege to have you with us here today to have this important 
discussion.
    But before we begin, I would like to recognize our ranking 
member, Mr. Aderholt, at this time for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be 
with you this morning and good to have our guest today.
    Mr. Alvord, thank you for being with us to share your 
insight on economic development and that's role in the pandemic 
response.
    I am pleased to be here virtually with everyone today as we 
look at oversight for EDA's role in the Federal Government's 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    In recent years, this agency has played an increasingly 
large role in the Federal response to disasters and economic 
distress. And in the span of just over 1 year, Congress has 
tasked it with administering an extraordinary amount of Federal 
dollars, a total of $4.5 billion of the Federal Government's 
response to the coronavirus pandemic, to be exact.
    Our Nation's small businesses and manufacturers are the 
engines that drive the American economy, and ensuring they have 
the resources to succeed as we continue to navigate this 
pandemic is vital.
    President Trump made restoring economic prosperity across 
the United States a top priority, and, prior to this pandemic, 
we saw manufacturing jobs return and employment increase to 
levels that we had not seen in this country in many years.
    That is why I am pleased to see that almost immediately 
upon enactment of the CARES Act last year the Commerce 
Department began working diligently to help our Nation's 
economy rebound from the impacts of COVID-19. Numerous 
investments have helped small businesses across the country and 
in my State of Alabama gain access to necessary capital to 
sustain them during this pandemic and, in turn, create a 
stronger and more resilient State economy for our future.
    And I think it is appropriate to credit the former 
administration and the staff of the Economic Development 
Administration, who truly rose to the occasion, for working so 
diligently to ensure that the CARES Act was and that it 
continues to be allocated to the communities that are in most 
need.
    These efforts did not go unappreciated in Washington 
either. The Commerce Department's Office of Inspector General 
credited the EDA with being proactive in its implementation of 
the CARES Act and leveraging technology as well as hiring 
flexibility to mitigate the challenges of administering such a 
large, time-sensitive effort during the very pandemic it was to 
counter. EDA even exceeded its own obligation milestones in the 
course of awarding its funding.
    Back home, our constituents are rightly concerned about the 
future of our communities and the effect that this pandemic is 
having on the workforce. Today, we can try to find answers to 
some of their remaining questions and hear about how the 
Commerce Department intends to distribute the funds that it 
received during the relief package. It remains critical that 
EDA administer this funding in a manner that reduces risk of 
waste, fraud, abuse, and, of course, mismanagement.
    I also want to discuss the importance of broadband 
technology for economic development and hear about what more 
EDA can do to help expand broadband connectivity. Regrettably, 
this pandemic has fully exposed the adverse consequences of a 
lack of connectivity, particularly for our schoolchildren and 
people who could benefit from telehealth at a time when our 
healthcare facilities are so very much strained.
    We are counting on the EDA to use these resources to help 
our communities rebound from this pandemic and emerge even 
stronger. Mr. Alvord, I am looking forward to hearing about 
these resources and how they will be leveraged to expand 
broadband and infrastructure, spur increases in much-needed 
manufacturing as well.
    Again, we thank you for being here today, for appearing 
before this subcommittee, and we look forward to hearing from 
you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    And, Mr. Alvord, you are recognized at this time for your 
opening remarks, which we would ask you to keep to 5 minutes, 
and remember that your entire opening statement will be 
submitted for the record.
    You are recognized, Mr. Alvord.
    Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member 
Aderholt, and members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to 
appear before you today to testify on behalf of the Department 
of Commerce's Economic Development Administration.
    EDA welcomes this hearing as an opportunity to discuss our 
role in COVID-19 recovery efforts through EDA's implementation 
of the CARES Act. EDA's efforts provide relief to and promote 
long-term recovery efforts in communities hard hit by the 
pandemic.
    Over the last 4 years, EDA's agency budget authority has 
grown substantially. In 2018 and 2019, through two disaster 
supplementals, EDA's budget authority grew to $901.5 million 
and $904 million respectively. In 2020, Congress provided the 
agency a historic influx of $1.5 billion under the CARES Act. 
Less than 1 year later, EDA has received an additional $3 
billion in funding under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
    With each supplemental, EDA is further entrusted to take on 
a greater and more prominent role in supporting communities 
recovering from the sudden economic disruption and dislocation.
    EDA investments generate or retain jobs, attract new 
industry and private-sector investment, encourage business 
expansion, and serve as a backstop to sudden and severe 
economic dislocations to local economies. We are aware of our 
important role in ensuring the funds are invested in an 
equitable, fair, and impactful manner and that we are reaching 
the communities most in need of our assistance.
    Because of the unusual and compelling urgency of the 
economic dislocations caused by the coronavirus pandemic, EDA 
determined that the public interest would be best served by 
using a portion of its supplemental CARES Act funding to 
expeditiously make awards to existing high-performing EDA grant 
recipients with unique capacities to respond rapidly to the 
situation. EDA made awards to its network of economic 
development districts, university centers, and Tribal planning 
organizations.
    The awards fund the cost of economic recovery coordination 
and technical assistance activities to support recovery from 
the pandemic within the geographic areas served by these 
organizations. These investments also helped develop a pipeline 
of infrastructure and workforce projects that EDA funded using 
the remaining CARES Act funds and will use to source projects 
for the upcoming American Rescue Plan Act competitions.
    In light of the immediate capital needs of small businesses 
unable to secure traditional financing, EDA also expeditiously 
infused additional capital into its Revolving Loan Fund Program 
using CARES Act funds.
    After meeting immediate needs, EDA funded a diverse range 
of economic recovery implementation projects using its flexible 
Economic Adjustment Assistance Program. EDA also launched the 
new Scaling Pandemic Resilience Through Innovation and 
Technology Challenge. The SPRINT Challenge is a $29 million 
national competition under which EDA sought projects that will 
enable organizations across the country to address the 
economic, health, and safety risks caused by the coronavirus 
pandemic through entrepreneurship and innovation.
    Our CARES Act investments are supporting a variety of 
critical economic development strategies that are helping 
communities to recover and set a course for future prosperity. 
And, today, I am pleased to note that EDA has awarded more than 
$1 billion in CARES Act grants and met this significant 
milestone in less than 1 year from the enactment of the CARES 
Act.
    EDA's work continues, and, as of April 16, 2021, EDA has 
obligated $1.098 billion of the $1.5 billion in supplemental 
CARES Act funding through 1,020 awards to communities across 
the country.
    I am proud of the fortitude shown by our grantee partners 
in responding to this crisis, and I am inspired by the 
dedication EDA's incredible staff has shown in meeting the 
challenge of quickly and responsibly awarding this important 
funding.
    The American Rescue Plan provides additional relief to 
address the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 
economy. The act allocates supplemental funding of $3 billion 
to EDA to assist communities nationwide in advancing their 
coronavirus recovery and resiliency strategies.
    Though EDA is still finalizing its implementation plan for 
this funding, the execution will focus on bringing back the 
American workforce in industries that have been hardest hit, 
such as travel and tourism and manufacturing; capitalizing on 
American ingenuity to build regions of the future by focusing 
on innovation-led economic development; and pursuing a 
comprehensive approach to advancing equity by focusing on 
populations and underserved communities that have been denied a 
full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic 
prosperity. EDA looks forward to further briefing the 
subcommittee as its implementation plans solidify.
    Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members 
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address 
EDA's efforts to assist communities in responding to the 
economic injury caused by the coronavirus pandemic. I am proud 
of the agency's critical role in supporting communities 
recovering from the economic devastation brought by the 
pandemic, and I look forward to answering any questions you may 
have.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Mr. Alvord. As I said in 
my opening statement, I certainly support EDA and its mission. 
And I appreciate you mentioning EDA's work with the 
Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance in your testimony. I hope 
today we can investigate how we can build on that work and 
expand efforts in areas like my district.
    First, I think I will start with a question that will help 
set the stage for this hearing. Can you please just tell us 
briefly what are the types of projects that you have been able 
to fund with the CARES Act funds? And do you expect the 
American Rescue Plan Act to be the same? Are there any easy 
characterizations of the projects? And do you know a rough 
breakdown of how the money was spent by category of project?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes, Congressman. Thank you for the question.
    EDA was able to fund a diverse range of different types of 
projects using the CARES Act funding, using our flexible 
Economic Adjustment Assistance Program.
    Much of our early work, as I mentioned, focused on grants 
to our existing network of high-performing economic development 
partners. So those included grants for strategies and technical 
assistance to help areas and regions to develop recovery 
strategies and coordinate assistance to aid and recovery. They 
included grants to our Tribal planning grantees to help those 
organizations engage in similar activities.
    We harnessed our University Center Program to leverage 
their inherent expertise in helping to assist communities and 
regions and provide technical assistance to businesses and 
entrepreneurs within their regions. And we supplemented very 
heavily our network of Revolving Loan Fund providers to address 
very directly, you know, the capital access needs.
    In addition to that, we developed, I think, a robust 
pipeline of projects, you know, implementation-style projects, 
to support strategies--marketing, recovery strategies--also, a 
wide range of different types of infrastructure investment 
projects to help regions to recover and bounce back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you for that.
    With the American Rescue Plan, it is my hope that, rather 
than focusing on regional economic planning, you will actually 
be doing more implementation work. Is that your expectation for 
the American Rescue Plan?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes, Chairman, it is.
    We were very deliberate in our approach to the CARES Act, 
you know, kind of, understanding where communities were at the 
onset and wanting to use our initial grants to build capacity, 
to support long-term planning and strategies for recovery, with 
the expectation that, those strategies and the recovery 
coordinators that we put in place could assist with the 
competitive awards through the CARES Act but also any 
additional supplemental funding that EDA might receive, as well 
as our core economic development assistance programming.
    I feel like we have done a very good job in establishing 
that capacity and that we will put a lot of additional emphasis 
on implementation.
    That said, there are still some areas that I think, may 
benefit from some additional planning, strategy, and capacity-
building, and we stand ready to support those needs as well.
    Mr. Cartwright. And how will the breakdown of categories of 
projects funded through the CARES Act change with funds from 
the American Rescue Plan?
    Mr. Alvord. Well, as I mentioned, we did leverage very 
heavily our existing network of economic development partners 
in implementing the CARES Act. And I think, based on what we 
have learned as a result of that investment, we intend to 
design strategies that will be very impactful in helping 
communities to both bounce back quickly from the economic 
impacts from the pandemic--so more in the way of specific 
implementation strategies--and position those communities for 
long-term economic growth and success.
    So we will likely take a more targeted approach under the 
American Rescue Plan in trying to reach underserved areas and 
trying to focus on, particular areas of emphasis such as 
industry, sectors that have been disproportionately impacted by 
the pandemic, like travel and tourism, manufacturing, and 
others. And hopefully that will enable us to really build upon 
the foundations that we laid with the CARES Act funding.
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay.
    Last question: How much of CARES Act funding went to new 
eligible organizations and first-time recipients versus current 
and past recipients?
    And my hope is that, as you expand into more implementation 
work rather than planning work, you will look to find more new 
partners.
    Mr. Alvord. Yes. I can say that, of the CARES Act awards 
that we made, approximately a little more than $800 million, or 
53 percent or so, of the competitive funding that we had 
available for awards after taking funding out to support 
salaries and expenses, administrative costs and operations, as 
well as the Inspector General oversight of the program, went to 
existing grantee organizations. So about 53 percent.
    And the balance of those funds went to other competitive 
implementation awards. We do expect that a vast majority of the 
American Rescue Plan funding will be going into implementation 
activities.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Mr. Alvord.
    My time has expired, and I recognize our ranking member, 
Mr. Aderholt, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. [Inaudible.]
    Mr. Cartwright. You are on mute, Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. How is that? Can you hear me now?
    Mr. Cartwright. Good. Yeah.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
    In my opening statement, I mentioned broadband, but I want 
to focus on it a little bit more. You know, of course, 
unfortunately, the lack of sufficient broadband in rural 
communities was an issue well before COVID-19 came into play. 
And, as I, again, referred to in my opening statement, the 
COVID-19 pandemic really fully exposed the adverse consequences 
for a lack of broadband access, especially in rural America.
    Can you, Mr. Alvord, discuss how EDA's funding Congress 
provided in the CARES Act has been used to assist in the 
development of broadband infrastructure? You know, I know this 
is a deep subject, but from a 30,000-foot level, could you talk 
about that just a little bit?
    Mr. Alvord. Absolutely. And thank you, Ranking Member, for 
the question.
    I think there are three primary ways that EDA has been 
assisting with broadband development under the CARES Act. I 
mentioned that we had provided assistance to our multicounty 
economic development districts to engage in economic recovery 
planning activities. And, certainly, planning for broadband 
needs would be an eligible activity under the scope of work for 
those grant awards. And I think many of our economic 
development districts took advantage of that opportunity to do 
just that.
    And we are certainly very cognizant that the pandemic 
really did shine a spotlight on the needs for enhanced 
broadband connectivity really both in rural and underserved 
urban areas as well.
    Second, we provided some strategic grants to communities to 
allow them to undertake technical and market feasibility 
studies so that they could determine what the best broadband 
solutions were for their region and their communities.
    And, finally, we funded infrastructure to actually bring 
broadband to unserved areas, in some cases, as well.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
    Of course, we recognize the role that EDA plays in saving 
jobs and, of course, opening new opportunities for economic 
growth and helping spur creation of jobs in rural communities.
    One example that I can point to is, back in 2018, one of my 
community colleges that is located within my district, Wallace 
State Community College, located in Hanceville, Alabama, was 
awarded $2 million to help build a new welding training center 
and business incubator.
    Investments like these, such as at Wallace State, not only 
benefit our local community and regional development but also 
serve the national interest, such as driving long-term economic 
growth.
    My question: To what extent has the pandemic impacted the 
amount of local and private investment that EDA has been able 
to leverage, and what are some ways that EDA has worked to 
address this particular issue?
    Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Ranking Member, for the question.
    The types of investments that you highlight, I think, in 
terms of workforce development projects and business incubation 
projects, are really critically important building blocks to 
success. And those are some of the types of grant investments 
we hope to make under the American Rescue Plan as well and have 
made under the CARES Act.
    So we have definitely seen cases under our CARES Act grant-
making where communities are having a more challenging time 
coming up with local matching funds to support EDA investments. 
And we have tried to be accommodating, given the flexibilities 
that Congress granted us under the act to provide up to 100 
percent grant rates. We do that based on the individual 
circumstances of each grantee and whether or not they have the 
ability to make a contribution or not, or if they may have 
exhausted, effectively, their taxing and borrowing authority 
due to the impacts of the pandemic.
    In terms of target investment, we are still continuing to 
look for opportunities to leverage additional private 
investment as part of our grant-making, because we find that 
that produces much more impactful results and is really 
critical to the success of our investments. And, fortunately, 
we have been successful, and continuing to do so, through our 
CARES Act grant-making.
    Mr. Aderholt. All right. Thank you.
    I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Ms. Meng from New York 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Acting Assistant Secretary Alvord, for 
joining us today. We owe you a debt of gratitude for the 
concurrent duties that you are performing, especially during 
COVID.
    I wanted to ask about the EDA's approach to economic injury 
in light of COVID. Historically, EDA funds have favored rural 
areas typically by a ratio of two-to-three for rural areas 
versus one-to-three for urban areas. I don't think anyone 
questioned this model before the pandemic.
    However, during the quarantine, which exposed the soft 
underbelly of major urban centers' reliance on tourism, for 
example. From restaurants to theaters to sporting events, no 
one was left unscathed. My district in Queens, New York, 
suffered near-total economic collapse last spring as everyone 
went into lockdown mode. Many businesses experienced 
unprecedented decline in business, and many are still 
recovering.
    So I wanted to ask, from your perspective, is EDA's current 
model sufficient to help urban areas revitalize? Does Congress 
need to reassess it in light of the pandemic's effect on urban 
areas?
    Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the kind words, 
and thank you for the question.
    I think one of the strengths of EDA's program is its 
inherent flexibility and our ability to be agile and respond to 
different types of changing economic distress.
    And we have unquestionably seen the phenomena that you 
mentioned, where high-population centers have been really 
disproportionately, in some cases, impacted by the health and 
economic impacts of the pandemic. And we do have flexibility 
under our program to address those areas. We are able to look 
at different sizes of geography when we are making grant 
awards.
    So we are cognizant of the fact that even in places of 
relative affluence there are, many times, pockets of poverty or 
economic distress that need to be addressed. And I believe that 
we do have adequate flexibility under our authorization to make 
grant awards in those cases and address those pockets.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you.
    Last year's spending bill included language requiring EDA 
to direct 10 percent of its funds towards helping persistent-
poverty counties, specifically in rural areas.
    The accompanying report also included concern that high-
poverty urban areas were often overlooked because their needs 
were overshadowed by affluent neighbors. For example, while New 
York City is affluent, there are pockets across our five 
counties that make up the city as a whole that have high-
poverty conditions, including parts of my district in Queens.
    And I was wondering if and how EDA is evaluating 
applications from high-poverty urban areas to ensure their 
applications receive additional priority?
    Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
    And, yes, we are very cognizant of that phenomena. In fact, 
I have spoken with representatives of our Philadelphia regional 
office, which services New York, and they have, you know, 
informed me that, actually, some of the most economically 
distressed areas in the State are in, you know, the sub-units 
in New York City and surrounding environments.
    And so they are very aware of this as part of their 
consideration of grant proposals and investments that come in, 
and, you know, they are able to evaluate those proposals on a 
competitive basis using the criteria that we have, you know, 
established under our notices of funding opportunity.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
    Mr. Palazzo, looks like you have your game face on. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Alvord, thank you for being here today. First and 
foremost, I want to thank your agency for their work.
    The global pandemic has caused losses due to health but 
also due to suffering economies. From global to local, 
businesses large and small were struggling to stay afloat and 
adapt to new laws, restrictions, and modes of business.
    Likewise to some of my colleagues' districts, the 
Mississippi Gulf Coast relies heavily on tourism to bolster the 
local and State economy. The EDA's most recent award to the 
Mississippi Gulf Coast Regional Convention and Visitors Bureau 
in Biloxi, Mississippi, to develop and implement a tourism 
recovery marketing campaign in response to the COVID-created 
economic downturn will be a great help to spreading the word of 
what the Gulf Coast has to offer.
    From our beautiful white beaches, a brand-new, world-class 
aquarium, the best seafood in the world, to activities like 
fishing and gambling, you can find something for everyone on 
the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
    So this all leads me to the following. Between the CARES 
bill and the administration's American Rescue Plan, there was 
some misunderstanding amongst members regarding the 
distribution of funds. While I agree with the distribution 
process, can you please explain why your agency distributes 
funds based on a level of economic distress versus per capita?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
And I do anticipate that, given the set-aside funding that was 
provided as part of the $3 billion under the American Rescue 
Plan, EDA will be doing even more work in the travel and 
tourism sector under the American Rescue Plan.
    In terms of the distribution or allocation that we use for 
EDA funding, typically we look at a variety of different 
factors, and we make those determinations on a case-by-case 
bass. So, for example, we have an allocation that we use for 
EDA's regular economic development assistance programs. When we 
receive supplemental funding for natural disasters, we might, 
develop a different allocation that addresses the exigencies of 
that particular disaster or economic situation.
    And that was similarly true for the CARES Act, where, we 
looked at a variety of different factors that were indicative 
of the distress under the CARES Act and we developed an 
allocation specific to that. And that included factors 
including population and different economic distress criteria. 
Core to our authorizing statute is our desire to address 
economic distress.
    Mr. Palazzo. Okay. I thank you for that response.
    You know, between the CARES Act as well as the American 
Rescue Plan, billions of Federal dollars have been allocated to 
your agency and other agencies. With a surge in funds comes a 
surge in responsibility for government entities, many of whom 
did not have this level of responsibility beforehand.
    The EDA's budget has risen from $267 million in 2017 to $3 
billion in 2021. So, along with increased COVID-19 funds, 
various pandemic relief efforts such as the SBA's Paycheck 
Protection Program have increasingly become a target for fraud. 
Are the EDA's Revolving Loan Fund loans targets of fraud like 
those that we saw with the PPP program?
    Mr. Alvord. Thank you again, Congressman, for the question.
    I think we are always cognizant and aware of the potential 
for there to be waste, fraud, and abuse. And we have tried to 
take a very proactive approach, in working with the Congress's 
Office of Inspector General, in guarding against that.
    And, in fact, one of the very first things that we did upon 
receiving the CARES Act funding was to engage in a dialogue 
with the IG. And we had their teams come in and conduct 
sensitivity training, for all EDA staff so that they could be 
better aware and hope to spot waste, fraud, and abuse and guard 
against that.
    That said, any time there is a lot of funding available, 
there are people looking to take advantage of that, and so we 
have to be continually watchful and mindful about the potential 
for that.
    Mr. Palazzo. All right. Thank you, Mr. Alvord.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
    And, Congressman Ben Cline, you are recognized for 5 
minutes of questions.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cartwright. In the absence of Representative Cline, we 
will bounce over to Representative Garcia, who is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Assistant Secretary Alvord, for your time 
and the information.
    My question is around defense contractors, folks who are 
providing critical assets to national security programs around 
the country. And we have a large footprint in our district, in 
California's 25th District, which is northern L.A. County. 
These defense contractors were afforded certain accommodations 
and were able to continue to work in certain States under the 
auspices of being essential businesses. Some struggled from 
State to State, depending on the definition of essential 
business.
    But can you tell me, kind of from an EDA perspective, what 
can be done to help some of these critical national defense 
component manufacturers throughout this last year but also 
moving forward, now that supply chains have been disrupted, 
natural resources have been disrupted? A lot of these products 
rely on raw earth materials that are now not necessarily 
guaranteed to show up on time or on cost.
    We have had a struggle with local government, county 
entities, for instance, giving access to the vaccines for these 
companies like some of the military would also be. Their 
military counterparts on the same facility were getting the 
vaccines while the civilian private companies were not. And 
they were sort of hand-in-glove partners on multiple programs, 
and it slowed down our national defense programs in that 
regard.
    Can you speak to that in terms of what the EDA can do to 
help us not only help improve the current situation but, I 
think, heal and recover from opportunity lost over the last 
year?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
    I think this is an area that we are acutely aware of. 
Unquestionably, among the most impacted industry sectors during 
the pandemic has been manufacturing and its supply chain. And 
that has, perhaps, brought one of the most consequential 
impacts to our long-term economic recovery.
    So, in designing both our implementation of the CARES Act 
and, certainly, as we move forward with the design for the 
implementation of the American Rescue Plan, we intend to put 
significant focus on this area.
    I think there are a variety of tools that EDA can bring to 
the table, both in terms of developing plans and strategies 
specifically for the economic recovery and growth of various 
industry sectors, but then, also, looking creatively at various 
industry clusters around the country that have the potential to 
support expansion and growth and development and how we can 
seed those clusters with additional funding and help them to 
accelerate and grow more rapidly and in a manner that is more 
inclusive of populations that have been adversely impacted by 
the pandemic.
    So it would be our hope that through some combination of 
strategy assistance and then implementation grants that we can 
support the rebound of those clusters.
    One other important area that was mentioned earlier is 
that, many times, these industries are highly reliant on having 
a trained and skilled workforce. So it would be our hope that 
we would be able to support training activities that align very 
specifically with those industry needs so that they are able to 
get the workforce that they need to bounce back more quickly.
    Mr. Garcia. [Inaudible.]
    Mr. Alvord. I think you are on mute.
    Mr. Garcia. Oh, my apologies. Thank you, Mr. Alvord, for 
that.
    I have less than a minute here, so I will yield back and 
save my follow-on questions for the next round, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. The member yields back.
    And this takes us to our next round of questions. And I 
will start that off.
    Mr. Alvord, I was happy to see the President's skinny 
budget included a 150-percent increase in the Assistance to 
Coal Communities Program that I helped to get started. You can 
expect me to continue to hold your feet to the fire on this 
program to be sure that historical coal communities, like mine, 
are not ignored. And it is not just my area; it is the 
Appalachians that go from northeastern Pennsylvania all the way 
down into eastern Kentucky and further.
    Question is: Is the Assistance to Coal Communities Program 
able to meet national demand for funding? How is that assessed? 
Several years into the program, has demand subsided?
    Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Chairman.
    Yes, the Assistance to Coal Communities Program has been a 
critically important tool in helping us to support communities 
that have been reliant on the production of coal or power 
generation related to coal across the entire country but 
specifically and acutely so, as you mentioned, across the 
Appalachian region.
    And, I will say that we have continued to see robust demand 
for those program resources despite budget increases year over 
year to the program. And while I don't know the exact numbers, 
I can certainly say anecdotally that we have continued to be 
oversubscribed in demand for the program.
    Mr. Cartwright. Has that surprised you?
    Mr. Alvord. It has not. Because of the nature of these 
economic adjustment transitions quite often, what we will see 
is that they will come in waves, where we may see first an 
idling of some mining capacity and then, several months or even 
a year or so later, a subsequent idling in power production 
capacity. And so, in both cases, we would want to come back 
around and assist with the economic adjustment in those areas.
    And, likewise, the impacts have moved geographically over 
time as well. What was at first very acutely focused in the 
eastern United States has also shifted and also had impacts in 
the West as well.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right.
    The Coal Communities Program provides economic 
diversification funding for energy in industry-impacted 
communities, of course. And so the question is: To what extent 
can similar programs be developed to support communities 
dependent on other fossil-fuel-based energy industries, such as 
oil and natural gas, that could face similar challenges as coal 
in the future as we transition toward renewable energy overall? 
How could they be developed?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes. Well, I think we have a really valuable 
tool, which is the EDA Economic Adjustment Assistance Program. 
And, in fact, the Assistance to Coal Communities is a 
subcategory of Economic Adjustment Assistance. And it packages 
together a very flexible set of tools--the ability to do 
strategy and technical assistance, capitalize revolving loan 
funds, as well as infrastructure improvements--to help areas 
that have been impacted by some event that has undermined the 
nature of their economy.
    So, really, we have learned some valuable lessons as a 
result of our work assisting coal communities with this 
economic transition that could certainly be applied to other 
industry sectors as well.
    And, in fact, EDA has begun a stream of work in helping 
communities that have nuclear power facilities that have come 
to the end of their useful life and helping those communities 
to undertake some type of economic adjustment and economic 
diversification opportunities.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, of course, it is not just the 
communities that only recently have been impacted by the 
decline in coal industry that need support. We talked about the 
city of Carbondale before, but the city of Scranton also dug 
coal for a century and helped power the country through the 
Industrial Revolution, and they have now had decades of 
disinvestment, economic dislocation, not to mention the 
tangible environmental impacts of poisonous water leaching from 
the abandoned mines into our creeks and rivers.
    So I would like to talk about how these funds are being 
targeted. How are you helping communities that have a long 
history of coal and are still reeling from the impacts of 
industry, like communities in my district in northeastern 
Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Chairman.
    You know, I come from one of those communities, so I am 
particularly cognizant and empathetic to those struggles. And I 
think these are really vexing and challenging problems, but, 
again, EDA has a very flexible set of economic development 
assistance tools.
    And we often think about these in two different categories. 
So there are events that undermine the base of an economy, and 
we see those as, like, sudden and severe economic dislocations. 
And we quite often respond to those through our Economic 
Adjustment Assistance Programs. And then there are communities, 
such as those that you are describing, that have suffered under 
the weight of long-term economic deterioration. Maybe they were 
once thriving and then an event undermined their economy and 
they never bounced back. Or, in some cases, we still have 
communities in this country that have really never had a strong 
economic foundation for growth and prosperity.
    And so, through our core Economic Development Assistance 
Program, we are really looking to assist those communities over 
the long term. So we use programs like our Partnership Planning 
Program to build capacity for recovery. We use our Local 
Technical Assistance Program to develop feasibility studies and 
strategic opportunities to redevelop brownfield sites to put 
idle land back into productive use through new economic 
development endeavors. And we use our Public Works Program to 
bring infrastructure and core capacity to those areas where it 
is missing.
    So I do think that we have the tools to do that, and we 
will be able to really build upon those foundations with the 
additional resources that have been provided under the American 
Rescue Plan.
    Mr. Cartwright. Good to hear, Mr. Alvord. Thank you for 
those answers.
    I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for 
another 5 minutes.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me go ahead and 
yield to Mr. Cline. I think he is back on now. So I will go 
ahead and yield my time at this point to Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Aderholt.
    I appreciate the witness for being here. And I was pulled 
away. We were having a meeting, Zoom meeting, with staff with 
the Restaurant Association, talking about the inability of 
restaurants to find labor in this challenging environment and 
the need to really work to encourage work.
    And so I hope--I don't really have a question there. I just 
hope that, Mr. Alvord, as you implement these plans, you keep 
in mind that employers across the country are having challenges 
finding workers.
    And I guess I could loop that into a question. I noted in 
your testimony that you mentioned that you were expanding the 
loan program, the Revolving Loan Fund, using CARES Act funds. 
Can you tell me how much you put into there from the CARES Act? 
And do you plan to duplicate that through this second bill that 
was enacted here recently?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes, we did--thank you, Congressman, for the 
question--we did significantly increase the capital that was 
available through EDA's network of Revolving Loan Fund 
providers under the CARES Act. And, in fact, we supplemented 
that network to the tune of about $600 million, really in 
recognition of, you know, the dearth of available capital to 
support businesses during this really, really trying time.
    And we have been very successful in putting that funding to 
immediate use and helping businesses with loans for working 
capital when necessary, or many businesses have taken advantage 
of the, sometimes, pause in activity to kind of re-envision 
their business models and look for expansion opportunities that 
will allow them to bounce back quickly when the customers start 
returning. So we are doing a lot of lending through that 
assistance.
    And I am also acutely aware of the point that you made 
about businesses and the need to be able to attract workforce 
that meets their needs. And we have been supporting a wide 
range of different types of workforce development investments 
under our CARES Act implementation and certainly anticipate 
doing more of that work under the American Rescue Plan. That is 
something we have heard a lot from industry about.
    Mr. Cline. And I appreciate that.
    You know, capital needs of small businesses, that is part 
of it. And I am just thinking of these restaurants I was just 
talking to who don't have as much--well, they are having to 
shut off their online orders, they are having to close early, 
they are having to--I mean, it is not necessarily a solution 
that you all are going to be able to provide. But I appreciate 
you trying to increase that loan fund. It will help free up 
capital, that otherwise would have had to go to capital needs, 
to reallocate for competing for this limited supply of workers.
    One of the problems that we have is that Governors around 
the country are not opening up fast enough. And with changing 
environments, increased vaccination rates, we have, again, 
government at the State and local level responding late to the 
realities on the ground. And so, in Virginia, we have a 
Governor that was last in the country for testing, last in the 
country for vaccination rates, and now is putting his--
unfortunately, limiting our economic recovery through his 
inability to find solutions.
    Let's go to--I do want to mention that you all did provide 
funding for central Virginia, Central Shenandoah Planning 
District Commission. And I want to find out how that has been 
allocated. And what are you doing to follow the money to make 
sure that it is being spent appropriately?
    Mr. Alvord. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
    Yes, as memory serves, that was one of the supplemental 
awards that we made to our network of economic development 
districts to support economic recovery planning and 
coordination of various different types of economic recovery 
implementation.
    So we made those awards on a 2-year basis, recognizing that 
the economic impacts of the pandemic were likely going to be 
with us for some time. And, we continue to provide traditional 
oversight of those EDA grant investments, with the expectation 
that those will be resulting in recovery strategies that are 
very specific to the geography that is served by those entities 
and that they will hopefully be coming forward with additional 
grant proposals either for EDA or perhaps for other Federal 
partners that may be able to meet their economic development 
needs.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Thank you for yielding your time, Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Cartwright. David Trone of Maryland, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Am I coming through?
    Mr. Cartwright. You are.
    Mr. Trone. Great. Thank you today for this critical 
hearing.
    EDA is a critical lifeline for many of my constituents in 
my district, a very rural district. We have seen a steady loss 
of financial institutions across America, which creates serious 
challenges for small business in these communities to get 
traditional financing. COVID has only made it worse. And your 
RLF Program was a tremendous economic lifeline for many small 
businesses in our districts.
    We had a western Maryland vending business. The pandemic 
took its toll. The owner decided to retire. But your loans 
allowed one of the employees to purchase the business, and they 
are now flourishing. The Corner Tavern and Cafe in Cumberland 
closed last March. Again, with an EDA CARES loan, they were 
able to expand their dining options--walk-in, takeout--and they 
are up and running again. So a few examples of the importance 
of your resources.
    For those that question robust EDA funding, can you share 
again a little bit more about how EDA helps the economy 
flourish in these economically distressed areas?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes. Thank you, Representative Trone.
    And I really appreciate hearing those success stories. And, 
in fact, I am aware of successes like that that have occurred 
as a result of our lending through the Revolving Loan Fund 
Program across the entire country. And it is really heartening 
to hear that that has had the intended impact. And, in fact, 
you know, recognizing the dearth of available capital is 
exactly why EDA chose to invest very heavily in that area at 
the onset of the pandemic.
    So, I mean, that is one of our core tools to helping 
economically distressed areas to rebound and bounce back 
quickly. Two of the other tools that we commonly use are grants 
for strategic planning and technical assistance to help areas 
that have had one of these undermining events to re-envision 
how they can most expeditiously recover and sometimes re-
envision a new future that may involve diversification into new 
areas of economic development endeavors; and then a wide range 
of different types of infrastructure investments that can 
support growth and development.
    And we look for those infrastructure investments to be 
leveraged through local matching share, as well as to leverage 
additional private investment that can really be very 
transformative and impactful in helping economically distressed 
areas to recover.
    Mr. Trone. All right. I appreciate that.
    As I mentioned, the declining number of financial 
institutions, but the rural communities have, you know, many 
other barriers. It is just so much harder for them to attract 
private-sector investments. So how does EDA plan to leverage 
Federal resources to increase these private-sector investments, 
particularly rural?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes. That is unquestionably a challenge, where 
there may be lack of access to capital through traditional 
lenders or there may be other challenges to encouraging and 
bringing private-sector investment to a rural or underserved 
community.
    And, I mean, this is really one of the strengths of the 
EDA's programming, in that, by making strategic, enabling 
investments, we can sometimes be the first dollars in and send 
a signal to the marketplace that there is a leading indicator 
that would attract additional private capital dollars and 
investment.
    We also play a very important role in increasing the 
capacity of these rural areas and actually enabling them to 
take advantage of the economic assets that they have at their 
disposal.
    For example, many rural communities may have community 
colleges or other assets that can be leveraged as workforce 
development engines for industry that may be willing to 
relocate into an area. Or they may be at a strategic 
intersection of different types of infrastructure, such as 
highways or rail lines, et cetera.
    They can build upon those economic assets to grow and 
expand their economy. And EDA can support them through 
additional supplemental infrastructure investments to expand 
those comparative advantages.
    Mr. Trone. I yield back.
    And keep helping us on the broadband. That is really key in 
rural. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
    Mr. Palazzo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don't have 
any more questions for Mr. Alvord. I appreciate him coming on.
    But I would like to just, you know, build on some of the 
comments from my colleagues. And I want to join with 
Congressman Cline. Look, this extension of supplemental 
unemployment is devastating restaurants and small businesses in 
my district. You know, right when we think we are coming out of 
it--I mean, there are ``hiring'' signs on almost every 
business.
    And, you know, just think of the money we could be saving 
if we weren't paying people to stay at home, but to get off 
their butts and get out of their house and go to work. Because 
it feels like sometimes the Federal Government's cure to a 
problem is more dangerous than the disease to begin with. And 
so we have to get back to work. We have to get our economy 
going again.
    I mean, I know we are--you see it trending up, but then you 
see an administration doing everything he possibly can to tear 
down the economy just because Trump had his name on it or his 
fingerprints.
    Increasing the corporate rates; we are going to see a push 
for overregulation; a push by Big Labor--all three of these 
were the three-legged stool that drove American companies and 
American jobs overseas. And it shouldn't be whether you are a 
Republican or a Democrat to see that, when we started peeling 
back the regulations and we lowered the corporate tax rate, got 
competitive for the first time in decades, and we weren't 
kowtowing to the union bosses, we had a record economy, record 
unemployment, record minority participation in the job market, 
and job creation, all this.
    And, you know, I don't care what administration. It is just 
like, when you see something that works and something that is 
making America competitive and getting Americans to work and 
your retirement accounts are flush with cash, don't mess with 
it. Don't mess with it.
    That is all I had to say. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
opportunity to filibuster, even though we are not in the 
Senate. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for your opinions, Mr. Palazzo.
    And, on that score, about Democrats and Republicans, Mr. 
Alvord, the American Rescue Plan puts $3 billion into EDA. And, 
as Ms. Meng mentioned, pretty much two-thirds of EDA money goes 
into rural areas, which are mostly represented by Republicans 
and who unanimously voted against the American Rescue Plan.
    My question for you is: Is the administration planning on 
penalizing any of these Republican districts into which the EDA 
money is going to go from the American Rescue Plan?
    Mr. Alvord. No, Mr. Chairman, it certainly is not. And, you 
know, EDA investment criteria, as I mentioned earlier, focus 
very much on economic distress and looking at the types of 
grant investments that are going to be most impactful in 
helping to grow and expand the regional economy and the 
national economy.
    Mr. Cartwright. Very good.
    And I am going to end my filibuster and turn it over to Mr. 
Garcia for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And just for clarification, I know I voted against the last 
package, the $1.9 trillion. I like things like the $3 billion 
that goes to EDA. I even supported the $2,000 stimulus checks 
to individuals and the PPP refilling for small businesses. But 
I still can't figure out where the other pile of $1.5 trillion 
is going.
    So I appreciate that you are not punishing those districts 
that are trying to be fiscally responsible while still 
navigating a post-pandemic world.
    And when we talk about the pre-pandemic world, literally, 
we had jobs looking for people in many industries. And one of 
those industries, we touched on it earlier, the aerospace and 
defense industry, had a lack of engineering talent. We were 
seeing a rising tide of investments in our military, which was 
much needed after the Budget Control Act and sequestration. We 
were seeing a modernization effort of our military. And this 
helped large, prime companies like the Lockheeds and the 
Boeings of the world, but it trickled down into the mom-and-pop 
shops that were making bit-and-piece components for these 
larger programs. But we were having a problem, in many cases, 
of getting contracts on contract because we didn't have the 
staffing needs and the headcount needed to do it correctly.
    I would submit that, you know, we will get through this 
pandemic, we will get things back on line. We need to continue 
to invest in our infrastructure, our transportation programs, 
our military programs. But what I think when things get back to 
normal and steady state as much as they can is we are going to 
realize, again, that we have a talent shortage.
    And I know that you were funded, I believe, $2 million to 
do an apprenticeship pilot program. Can you talk about, first 
of all, how is the implementation of that $2 million? That 
seems like an anemic amount of money, so you probably wouldn't 
be able to do too much with it. But were there lessons learned, 
or is there something that you can scale up to from that to 
help us with this, sort of, talent and apprenticeship training 
gap that we have now, relative to some of our competitive 
nations?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes, Congressman. Thank you so much for that 
question.
    It is actually a program that we are quite excited about. 
It is the STEM Apprenticeship Program. It was authorized under 
section 28 of the Stevenson-Wydler Act, or America COMPETES 
Act. And that program has been on the books for quite some 
time, but it has never been appropriated. And so, last year, 
for the first time, we did receive a first-ever appropriation 
of $2 million.
    We ran a national competition for that program, which is a 
little different than the way EDA administers the majority of 
our grant programs. But we did very much view this as an 
opportunity to learn some lessons, to your point, about what 
would some of the most effective techniques be in workforce 
development?
    So, just a few months ago, we were able to make the first 
round of awards. We had seven awardees. It is a very diverse 
and eclectic range of different types of organizations that 
received awards. Everything from an Alaskan Native village to a 
small, rural community college and an urban training provider 
have received assistance under this program.
    So we are very much looking forward, as they move into the 
implementation phases, to learning some lessons through the 
implementation of that program that we can apply to our other 
work.
    EDA has traditionally invested in a wide variety of 
different types of workforce development projects, including 
infrastructure investments for brick and mortar for skilled 
training facilities. Oftentimes we have funded things like wet/
dry lab development for training purposes or, in some cases, 
specialized training equipment.
    But I think this new STEM Apprenticeship Program will give 
us some valuable lessons in terms of the development of the 
programs, the program design, as well as the curriculum that 
may be most successful, particularly in supporting industry 
needs.
    I mean, we know just anecdotally that some of the most 
successful workforce investments are those that align very 
closely with what industry needs, where they have jobs, as you 
mentioned in your case, in the defense industry.
    Mr. Garcia. Yeah. Okay. Great.
    So I think the ask is to make sure that you are 
communicating and clearly highlighting to us where that line 
item and the funding for that line item exists to make sure 
that we are scaling it up. And, you know, the apprenticeship 
and the vocational training outside of even 4-year universities 
and at the local community college levels, I think there are a 
lot of us interested in how do we expand that.
    So thank you, Mr. Alvord.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    And we are going to conclude this hearing, but, before we 
do, I want to give Mr. Aderholt, our ranking member, a chance 
to exercise his second-round 5 minutes of questions if he 
chooses.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a 
couple more questions I did want to refer to.
    Mr. Alvord, in your testimony, you know, the EDA had made 
about 1,000 awards to communities across the country. Of all 
the EDA applications that were submitted for the CARES Act, 
what did you see was the most frequently requested project type 
or purpose?
    Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Ranking Member, for the question.
    I think we saw a very, very diverse range of applications 
come in. And you probably won't be surprised to hear that the 
nature of those applications kind of trended with the changing 
dynamics of the pandemic.
    You know, early on, there were a high volume of requests 
for things like planning, recovery assistance, and, as I 
mentioned before, a preponderance of requests for access to 
capital, supplemental grants through our Revolving Loan Fund 
network.
    But as the impacts of the pandemic became clearer and 
affected different areas, we certainly saw upticks as various 
industry sectors were impacted--so things like the travel and 
tourism sector or the manufacturing sector and its subsequent 
supply chain. We would see, then, subsequent waves of 
investments that were very targeted at those different industry 
sectors.
    And we have tried to be agile and adaptable in meeting the 
needs of those communities as they have changed over the course 
of the year of the pandemic.
    Mr. Aderholt. And what were the total number of 
applications that you received under the CARES Act funding? Can 
you tell us that number?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes. I believe I can. Let's see.
    To date--and, of course, you know, we are still accepting 
applications and we are still making grant awards. But, to 
date, we have received 2,392 applications, and, as of the 16th 
of this month, we have awarded 1,020 of those applications.
    Mr. Aderholt. And what percentage received 100 percent 
funding?
    Mr. Alvord. Actually, I don't know off the top of my head 
what percentage received 100 percent. We did have the 
discretion under the act to go up to 100 percent, and I would 
say that, given the levels of economic distress, we probably 
funded a greater number at 100 percent than would traditionally 
be the case. But that is certainly something I can take back 
and get for you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thanks.
    And occasionally we hear questions about how EDA makes 
decisions to award grants and what criteria is considered by 
the agency. For most Federal grant programs across other 
Federal agencies, a scoring criteria is published. Can you talk 
about why EDA does not publish a scoring criteria, in 
particular?
    Mr. Alvord. Yes. So we--well, this varies a little bit from 
program to program and notice of funding opportunity to notice 
of funding opportunity. But for our core economic development 
programs, the primary reason is that it is challenging to take 
a one-size-fits-all approach to the diverse range of different 
types of economic development investments that EDA is 
supporting.
    So we do establish, through our notices of funding 
opportunity, the criteria that we will be looking at when we 
make investments. And we do publish investment priorities to 
incentivize and guide specific types of investment activities.
    What we have found over time, that we can be most 
successful and that our communities can be most successful when 
we can take a flexible approach so that we are not comparing 
apples to oranges to trains to rail spurs to industrial parks 
to strategy grants. Because of this really eclectic range, it 
is hard to come up with a criteria that is one-size-fits-all.
    Now, sometimes, when we have more homogenous programs, we 
are able to do more of that, kind of, precise criterion. But we 
have found that, overall, the flexibility serves our grantees 
the best.
    Mr. Aderholt. And then, quickly, in administering the CARES 
Act funding, EDA used an automatic, noncompetitive process to 
provide funding to economic development districts in good 
standing, which allowed these districts to quickly ramp up 
their capacity, able to hire extra staff to serve as disaster 
relief coordinators, and quickly and efficiently inject needed 
relief into their community.
    Will EDA use the same effective and efficient process to 
administer the American Rescue Plan Act as well?
    Mr. Alvord. Well, so we are still in the process of 
developing our program and implementation plan for the American 
Rescue Plan.
    I do think that a greater share of the overall assistance 
is likely to be provided on a competitive basis across 
different competitions under the American Rescue Plan. However, 
there will likely be some instances when we might avail 
ourselves of the opportunity to expeditiously provide some 
assistance, to get it out and get it working within targeted 
populations right away.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
    All right. I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
    And thank you to members of the subcommittee for an 
interesting and sometimes animated discussion.
    And thank you, especially, to Mr. Alvord for your 
responsive and well-informed answers to our questions.
    With that, this hearing is hereby adjourned.
    Mr. Alvord. Thank you.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
                            [all]